On 2012-09-29 05:07, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Now that we're always sparcv9, we can not bother using Bicc for
>> 32-bit branches and BPcc for 64-bit branches and instead always
>> use BPcc.
>
> But then the branch range is smaller (19 bits).
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Now that we're always sparcv9, we can not bother using Bicc for
> 32-bit branches and BPcc for 64-bit branches and instead always
> use BPcc.
But then the branch range is smaller (19 bits). The code buffer is
32M, wouldn't we use BPcc fo
Now that we're always sparcv9, we can not bother using Bicc for
32-bit branches and BPcc for 64-bit branches and instead always
use BPcc.
New interfaces allow less direct use of tcg_out32 and raw numbers
inside the qemu_ld/st routines.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c