On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 23:37 +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > I can check the hypervisor feature is not present, for emulating PowerPC
> > 620 on a target that would have hypervisor emulation support. But I
> > cannot do as if the CPU do not have the feature if it's actually
> > available. The PowerPC
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 14:09 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Two side comments:
Hi,
> > Note that most (all ?) embedded Freescale PowerPC microcontrollers
> > implement those extensions and that some ones are greatly interrested
> > with having an usable emulation avaible for those CPUs.
>
> Has
Two side comments:
Note that most (all ?) embedded Freescale PowerPC microcontrollers
implement those extensions and that some ones are greatly interrested
with having an usable emulation avaible for those CPUs.
Has anyone started to implement spe ?
- someone provide an open-source hyperviso
> I can check the hypervisor feature is not present, for emulating PowerPC
> 620 on a target that would have hypervisor emulation support. But I
> cannot do as if the CPU do not have the feature if it's actually
> available. The PowerPC 64 target emulates PowerPC 64 without the
> hypervisor feature
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:55:26PM +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> >Why not adding a new CPU type such as "PPC970 with hypervisor" and keep
> >the current PPC970 implementation as it is without the hypervisor mode.
> >I don't see the problem
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:55:26PM +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>Why not adding a new CPU type such as "PPC970 with hypervisor" and keep
>the current PPC970 implementation as it is without the hypervisor mode.
>I don't see the problem in replacing the ifdefs with a new CPU model !
>You cannot rea
Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
> seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduces more #ifdefs
> which prevent making a version supporting simultaneously all the CPUs.
>
> In particular I saw the following:
>
> - TARGET_MIP
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 22:47 +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Removing the ppc64h target means, for me, removing any option to emulate
> > the hypervisor feature at any time (if removed) or removing the ability
> > to use the PowerPC 64 targets the way they are when booting on Apple G5
> > machines (if
J. Mayer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 22:55 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>> Jocelyn Mayer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 19:32 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduce
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 22:55 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> Jocelyn Mayer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 19:32 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> >> I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
> >> seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduces more #ifdefs
> >
Jocelyn Mayer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 19:32 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
>> I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
>> seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduces more #ifdefs
>> which prevent making a version supporting simultaneously all the CP
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 19:32 +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
> seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduces more #ifdefs
> which prevent making a version supporting simultaneously all the CPUs.
>
> In particular I
I noticed that some target CPUs macros have been added while they do not
seem necessary. I don't like that because it introduces more #ifdefs
which prevent making a version supporting simultaneously all the CPUs.
In particular I saw the following:
- TARGET_MIPSN32 : it is always combined with TAR
13 matches
Mail list logo
