On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:39:09AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 October 2016 at 00:55, David Gibson wrote:
> > It is an improvement. But I still think if we're relying on the
> > ill-defined "target endianness" we're already doing something wrong.
>
> Target endianness is not ill-defined.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:10:07PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:39:09 +0100
> Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> > On 7 October 2016 at 00:55, David Gibson
> > wrote:
> > > It is an improvement. But I still think if we're relying on the
> > > ill-defined "target endianness" we're alre
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:39:09 +0100
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 October 2016 at 00:55, David Gibson wrote:
> > It is an improvement. But I still think if we're relying on the
> > ill-defined "target endianness" we're already doing something wrong.
>
> Target endianness is not ill-defined. It's
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:36:58 +0100
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 October 2016 at 08:31, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:10:14 +0200
> > Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/10/2016 22:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> > On 6 October 2016 at 11:56, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >> >> +/
On 7 October 2016 at 00:55, David Gibson wrote:
> It is an improvement. But I still think if we're relying on the
> ill-defined "target endianness" we're already doing something wrong.
Target endianness is not ill-defined. It's a clear and constant
property of the bus the CPU is plugged into. It
On 7 October 2016 at 08:31, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:10:14 +0200
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2016 22:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> > On 6 October 2016 at 11:56, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> >> +/* ask endianness of the target */
>> >> +
>> >> +qtest_sendf(s, "endianne
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 09:10:14 +0200
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 06/10/2016 22:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 6 October 2016 at 11:56, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >> The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
> >> the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
> >> using a new qtest co
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:55:29 +1100
David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:46:22PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:58 +0200
> > Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >
> > > The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
> > > the architecture name but asked directly to the
On 06/10/2016 22:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 October 2016 at 11:56, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
>> the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
>> using a new qtest command: "endianness". As it can't
>> change (this is the value of TAR
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:46:22PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:58 +0200
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> > The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
> > the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
> > using a new qtest command: "endianness". As it can't
> > c
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:56:58 +0200
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
> the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
> using a new qtest command: "endianness". As it can't
> change (this is the value of TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN),
> we store it to not
On 6 October 2016 at 11:56, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
> the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
> using a new qtest command: "endianness". As it can't
> change (this is the value of TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN),
> we store it to not have to
The target endianness is not deduced anymore from
the architecture name but asked directly to the guest,
using a new qtest command: "endianness". As it can't
change (this is the value of TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN),
we store it to not have to ask every time we want to
know if we have to byte-swap a val
13 matches
Mail list logo
