Ok, then I will remove that line. I like the assert idea and will add
that to the patch. Thank you for your comments and help!
On 2015-11-16 13:52, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16/11/15 13:14, Daniel Cederman wrote:
I was unsure if the ET bit was always set or not for newly created
task contexts,
On 16/11/15 13:14, Daniel Cederman wrote:
I was unsure if the ET bit was always set or not for newly created
task contexts, or if this was the first place that traps got enabled
for a new task. If it is always set we can remove that instruction.
The PSR is initialized like this (_CPU_Context_I
I was unsure if the ET bit was always set or not for newly created task
contexts, or if this was the first place that traps got enabled for a
new task. If it is always set we can remove that instruction.
On 2015-11-16 11:27, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16/11/15 11:06, Daniel Cederman wrote:
@
On 16/11/15 11:06, Daniel Cederman wrote:
@@ -202,6 +193,13 @@ try_update_is_executing:
! The next load is in a delay slot, which is all right
#endif
+ld [%o1 + PSR_OFFSET], %g1 ! g1 = heir psr
+andn%g1, SPARC_PSR_CWP_MASK, %g1 ! g1 = heir psr w/o
