On 4/10/19 9:37 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Why not use tci_write_reg64, since that is the size of the register you're
>> modifying? Let the zero-extension explicit in the name of the opcode to be
>> reflected in the zero-extension implied by the passing of a uint16_t value
>> to a
>> uint64_t argu
On 11.04.19 08:46, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Looks ok, I guess, although the introduction of tci_write_reg16 seems
> redundant
> with the uint16_t value that is loaded.
It could directly call tci_write_reg, but the new code is similar to the
existing code which also uses the same kind of indirec
On 4/10/19 9:48 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> @@ -127,6 +127,12 @@ static void tci_write_reg8(tcg_target_ulong *regs,
> TCGReg index, uint8_t value)
> tci_write_reg(regs, index, value);
> }
>
> +static void
> +tci_write_reg16(tcg_target_ulong *regs, TCGReg index, uint16_t value)
> +{
> +tci
On 10/04/2019 21.48, Stefan Weil wrote:
> This fixes "make check-tcg" on a Debian x86_64 host.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil
> ---
> tcg/tci.c | 15 +++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tcg/tci.c b/tcg/tci.c
> index 33edca1903..a6208653e8 100644
> --- a/tcg/tci.c
This fixes "make check-tcg" on a Debian x86_64 host.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil
---
tcg/tci.c | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tcg/tci.c b/tcg/tci.c
index 33edca1903..a6208653e8 100644
--- a/tcg/tci.c
+++ b/tcg/tci.c
@@ -127,6 +127,12 @@ static void tci_write_
