On Monday 23 October 2006 2:37 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Better to just teach qemu how to generate code.
> > > In fact I've already done most of the infrastructure (and a fair amount
> > > of the legwork) for this. The only major missing function is code to do
> > > softmmu load/store ops.
> > >
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 16:53, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 23 October 2006 2:37 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > Better to just teach qemu how to generate code.
> > > > In fact I've already done most of the infrastructure (and a fair
> > > > amount of the legwork) for this. The only major missin
Paul,I just checkout from CVS repository and encountered the following problem while building the code.It seems you eleminate your original arguments of function gen_op_divs and gen_op_divu.Could you take a look?
gcc -Wall -O2 -g -fno-strict-aliasing -I. -I.. -I/home/cjia/research/Operating_Systems
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 20:20, Neo Jia wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I just checkout from CVS repository and encountered the following problem
> while building the code.
>
> It seems you eleminate your original arguments of function gen_op_divs and
> gen_op_divu.
>
> Could you take a look?
>
> gcc -Wall -O
Welcome to Stupid Question Theatre! With your host, Paul Brook. Today's
contestant is: Rob Landley. How dumb will it get?
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 2:02 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> The basic principle is very similar. Host code is decomposed into an
> intermediate form consisting of simple opera
This patch contains an initial version of an USB network interface
(RNDIS / CDC Ethernet) emulator. It has been tested with Linux (Fedora
Core 6). It uses the same vendor and product ID's as the linux gadget
network device driver, therefore the "linux.inf" file from
Documentation/usb of a linux-2.6
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 20:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> Welcome to Stupid Question Theatre! With your host, Paul Brook. Today's
> contestant is: Rob Landley. How dumb will it get?
>
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 2:02 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> > The basic principle is very similar. Host code is decom
Paul Brook a écrit :
Replacing the pregenerated blocks with hand written assembly isn't feasible.
Each target has its own set of ops, and each host would need its own assembly
implementation of those ops. Multiply 11 targets by 11 hosts and you get a
unmaintainable mess :-)
Shouldn't you have
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 22:31, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> Paul Brook a écrit :
> > Replacing the pregenerated blocks with hand written assembly isn't
> > feasible. Each target has its own set of ops, and each host would need
> > its own assembly implementation of those ops. Multiply 11 targets b
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 2:02 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> As an example take the arm instruction
>
> add, r0, r1, r2, lsl #2
>
> This is equivalent to the C expression
>
> r0 = r1 + (r2 << 2)
...
> When fully converted to the new system this would become:
>
> int tmp = gen_new_qreg(); /* Al
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 5:08 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 20:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Welcome to Stupid Question Theatre! With your host, Paul Brook. Today's
> > contestant is: Rob Landley. How dumb will it get?
Bonus round!
> > I thought what you were doing was repl
> Where's the shift? I think the above code means you generate an immediate
> value (the 2), add it to R2 with the result going in a spill register, and
> then add the spill register to R1, with the result going to R0. Should
> that middle line be some kind of gen_op_lshift32() instead of
> gen_o
> Actually it sounds additive rather than multiplicative. Does each target
> have an entirely unrelated set of ops, or is there a shared set of
> primitive ops plus some oddballs?
The shared set of primitive ops is basically qops :-)
You probably could figure out a single common qet of qops, then
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Paul Brook 06/11/01 01:44:16
Modified files:
. : vl.c
Log message:
Remove FD on close.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/vl.c?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.217&r2=1.218
___
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 7:29 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Actually it sounds additive rather than multiplicative. Does each target
> > have an entirely unrelated set of ops, or is there a shared set of
> > primitive ops plus some oddballs?
>
> The shared set of primitive ops is basically qops :-)
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 01:51, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 7:29 pm, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > Actually it sounds additive rather than multiplicative. Does each
> > > target have an entirely unrelated set of ops, or is there a shared set
> > > of primitive ops plus some oddb
16 matches
Mail list logo
