On 05/12/2015 01:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 10:27 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 01:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> +static void in2_m2_32s_atomic(DisasContext *s, DisasFields *f, DisasOps *o)
>>> +{
>>> +/* XXX should reserve the address */
>>> +in2_m2_32s
On 05/12/2015 01:42 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> But wouldn't it really be "addr2"? This is the address source for the second
> argument after all.
Yes, but we already abuse the name.
r~
On 05/12/2015 10:27 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/12/2015 01:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
+static void in2_m2_32s_atomic(DisasContext *s, DisasFields *f, DisasOps *o)
+{
+/* XXX should reserve the address */
+in2_m2_32s(s, f, o);
+}
+#define SPEC_in2_m2_32s_atomic 0
+
+static void i
On 05/12/2015 10:27 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/12/2015 01:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
+static void in2_m2_32s_atomic(DisasContext *s, DisasFields *f, DisasOps *o)
+{
+/* XXX should reserve the address */
+in2_m2_32s(s, f, o);
+}
+#define SPEC_in2_m2_32s_atomic 0
+
+static void i
On 05/12/2015 01:20 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> +static void in2_m2_32s_atomic(DisasContext *s, DisasFields *f, DisasOps *o)
> +{
> +/* XXX should reserve the address */
> +in2_m2_32s(s, f, o);
> +}
> +#define SPEC_in2_m2_32s_atomic 0
> +
> +static void in2_m2_64_atomic(DisasContext *s, Dis
