On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 12:19 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> twi etc will generally resume from the next instruction if they trap,
> yes? In which case I'm a bit confused by the nip - 4. But possibly I
> just haven't correctly followed all the nip update logic changed by
> this patch.
>From the ISA
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 12:19 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:21:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> >
> > We make env->nip almost always point to the faulting instruction,
> > thus avoiding a mess of "store_current" vs "store_next" in the
> > exception handling. Th
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:21:10AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We make env->nip almost always point to the faulting instruction,
> thus avoiding a mess of "store_current" vs "store_next" in the
> exception handling. The syscall exception knows to move the PC by
> 4 and that's really abou
We make env->nip almost always point to the faulting instruction,
thus avoiding a mess of "store_current" vs "store_next" in the
exception handling. The syscall exception knows to move the PC by
4 and that's really about it.
This actually fixes a number of cases where the translator was
setting en
