On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:34:12PM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 12:56 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > That said the implementation is likely wrong as with this patch applied,
> > qemu-system-x86_64 is not even able to execute seabios to the first
> > printed message. Please do at l
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:24:59PM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 09:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 11/03/2013 12:56 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> That said the implementation is likely wrong as with this patch applied,
> >> qemu-system-x86_64 is not even able to execute s
On 11/04/2013 09:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 12:56 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> That said the implementation is likely wrong as with this patch applied,
>> qemu-system-x86_64 is not even able to execute seabios to the first
>> printed message. Please do at least basic testing.
>
On 11/03/2013 12:56 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> That said the implementation is likely wrong as with this patch applied,
> qemu-system-x86_64 is not even able to execute seabios to the first
> printed message. Please do at least basic testing.
Really? I'll look into it.
I do basic testing -- arm
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:21:53PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There was a misconception that a stop bit is required between a compare
> and the branch that uses the predicate set by the compare. This lead to
This seems to be true.
> the usage of an extra bundle in which to perform the com
There was a misconception that a stop bit is required between a compare
and the branch that uses the predicate set by the compare. This lead to
the usage of an extra bundle in which to perform the compare. The extra
bundle left room for constants to be loaded for use with the compare insn.
If we
