On 29 March 2011 09:55, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Doesn't this take you over MAX_OP_PER_INSTR for some cases?
>
> I haven't encountered any case where it does.
This untested patch against your v2 ought to make it print
a warning if you do go over the
On 29.03.2011, at 11:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 March 2011 10:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 29.03.2011, at 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2011 09:55, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Doesn't this take you over MAX_OP_PER_INSTR f
On 29 March 2011 10:25, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 29.03.2011, at 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 29 March 2011 09:55, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
Doesn't this take you over MAX_OP_PER_INSTR for some cases?
>>>
>>> I haven't encountered any case
On 29.03.2011, at 11:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 March 2011 09:55, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 March 2011 15:58, Alexander Graf wrote:
diff --git a/target-s390x/translate.c b/target-s390x/translate.c
+case 0x4: /*
On 29 March 2011 09:55, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>> On 24 March 2011 15:58, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> diff --git a/target-s390x/translate.c b/target-s390x/translate.c
>>> + case 0x4: /* LMG R1,R3,D2(B2) [RSE] */
>>> + case 0x24: /*
On 28.03.2011, at 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 March 2011 15:58, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> diff --git a/target-s390x/translate.c b/target-s390x/translate.c
>
>> +typedef struct DisasContext DisasContext;
>> +struct DisasContext {
>> +uint64_t pc;
>> +int is_jmp;
>> +enum cc_op
On 24 March 2011 15:58, Alexander Graf wrote:
> diff --git a/target-s390x/translate.c b/target-s390x/translate.c
> +typedef struct DisasContext DisasContext;
> +struct DisasContext {
> + uint64_t pc;
> + int is_jmp;
> + enum cc_op cc_op;
> + CPUS390XState *env;
> + struct Translati
