On 5/30/22 12:01, Peter Maydell wrote:
I'll have another go at this reorg this week. If it still doesn't feel
cleaner, we can
drop it, and I'll make some changes to the SME patch set building on this.
I was wondering if it would work better the other way around, so that
raise_exception() does
On Mon, 30 May 2022 at 17:39, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> On 5/30/22 05:44, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> G_NORETURN void raise_exception(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t excp,
> >> -uint32_t syndrome, uint32_t target_el);
> >> +uint32_t syn
On 5/30/22 05:44, Peter Maydell wrote:
G_NORETURN void raise_exception(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t excp,
-uint32_t syndrome, uint32_t target_el);
+uint32_t syndrome, uint32_t cur_or_target_el);
"cur_or_target_el" is odd, because i
On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 21:49, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> The work of finding the correct target EL for an exception is
> currently split between raise_exception and target_exception_el.
> Begin merging these by allowing the input to raise_exception
> to be zero and use exception_target_el for th
The work of finding the correct target EL for an exception is
currently split between raise_exception and target_exception_el.
Begin merging these by allowing the input to raise_exception
to be zero and use exception_target_el for that case.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
target/arm/intern
