From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ih9CO-0003P5-Cm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:28 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ih9CM-0003NC-SB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:27 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ih9CM-0003Mx-KI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:26 -0400
Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.64])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <reif@earthlink.net>) id 1Ih9CM-00070F-LB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:26 -0400
Received: from user-142h2k8.cable.mindspring.com ([72.40.138.136]
	helo=earthlink.net)
	by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1Ih9CL-0007Yi-00
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:25 -0400
Message-ID: <47126EC9.8000406@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:32:25 -0400
From: Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] sparc32 use stq_* for 64bit stores
References: <4712614B.9050908@earthlink.net>
	<f43fc5580710141225t4eca3567t4b106ffc2e0ec5cf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580710141225t4eca3567t4b106ffc2e0ec5cf@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Blue Swirl wrote:

>On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Should the address be 64 bit alligned?  i.e. T0 & ~7 rather than T0 & ~3?
>>
>>Should these unaligned address cause traps?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, but the checks are already generated from translate.c
>(gen_op_check_align_T0_7).
>  
>
De we to align then again?