On 11/20/18 12:06 AM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:10 AM Richard Henderson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/15/18 11:36 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> + tcg_out_opc_reg(s, OPC_ADD, base, TCG_GUEST_BASE_REG, addr_regl);
>>
>> Should avoid this when guest_base == 0, which happens fairly regularly for a
>> 64-bit guest.
>>
>>> + /* Prefer to load from offset 0 first, but allow for overlap. */
>>> + if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64) {
>>> + tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LD, lo, base, 0);
>>> + } else {
>>> + tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, lo, base, 0);
>>> + tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, hi, base, 4);
>>> + }
>>
>> Comment sounds like two lines of code that's missing.
>
> I can't figure out what this comment should be for. Why would we want
> to prefer loading with an offset 0?
Perhaps to help the memory controler; perhaps no reason at all.
But "allow for overlap" suggests
} else if (lo != base) {
tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, lo, base, 0);
tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, hi, base, 4);
} else {
tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, hi, base, 4);
tcg_out_opc_imm(s, OPC_LW, lo, base, 0);
}
r~
