On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 04:30:51PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 07.09.2012 06:26, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> > Quoting Richard Henderson :
> >
> >> On 09/06/2012 11:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> Richard, while at it, could you please check the s390x tcg target?
> >>> Running any target on
Am 07.09.2012 06:26, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> Quoting Richard Henderson :
>
>> On 09/06/2012 11:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Richard, while at it, could you please check the s390x tcg target?
>>> Running any target on there seems to break in the TLB code for me.
>>
>> I did successfully run a
Quoting Richard Henderson :
On 09/06/2012 11:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Richard, while at it, could you please check the s390x tcg target?
Running any target on there seems to break in the TLB code for me.
I did successfully run a simple linux-user test directly off blue's
patch set. It ex
On 09/06/2012 11:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Richard, while at it, could you please check the s390x tcg target?
> Running any target on there seems to break in the TLB code for me.
I did successfully run a simple linux-user test directly off blue's
patch set. It exercised a bit of fp and syste
On 05.09.2012, at 11:34, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 08:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> So that means your rewrite is based on this series and just fixes it up?
>> Does that mean if I apply this patch, you will be all happy?
>
> It is not (yet) based on this series. But I will be
On 05.09.2012, at 11:34, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 08:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> So that means your rewrite is based on this series and just fixes it up?
>> Does that mean if I apply this patch, you will be all happy?
>
> It is not (yet) based on this series. But I will be
On 09/04/2012 08:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> So that means your rewrite is based on this series and just fixes it up? Does
> that mean if I apply this patch, you will be all happy?
It is not (yet) based on this series. But I will be happy if you apply it,
since it's easier for me to rebase o
On 04.09.2012, at 18:03, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 12:40 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2012 10:33 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
+/* fpu_helper.c */
+uint32_t set_cc_f32(float32 v1, float32 v2);
+uint32_t set_c
On 09/04/2012 12:40 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 09/02/2012 10:33 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> +/* fpu_helper.c */
>>> +uint32_t set_cc_f32(float32 v1, float32 v2);
>>> +uint32_t set_cc_f64(float64 v1, float64 v2);
>>> +uint32_t set_cc_nz_f32(
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 10:33 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> +/* fpu_helper.c */
>> +uint32_t set_cc_f32(float32 v1, float32 v2);
>> +uint32_t set_cc_f64(float64 v1, float64 v2);
>> +uint32_t set_cc_nz_f32(float32 v);
>> +uint32_t set_cc_nz_f64(float64 v)
On 09/02/2012 10:33 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> +/* fpu_helper.c */
> +uint32_t set_cc_f32(float32 v1, float32 v2);
> +uint32_t set_cc_f64(float64 v1, float64 v2);
> +uint32_t set_cc_nz_f32(float32 v);
> +uint32_t set_cc_nz_f64(float64 v);
> +
I think that the CC handling should stay together, regardl
Move floating point instructions to fpu_helper.c.
While exporting some condition code helpers,
avoid duplicate identifier conflict with translate.c.
Remove unused set_cc_nz_f64() in translate.c.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
---
target-s390x/Makefile.objs |2 +
target-s390x/cpu.h |
12 matches
Mail list logo
