andrzej zaborowski wrote: > 2008/7/16 Jan Kiszka : >> Laurent Desnogues wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >>>> Andrzej Zaborowski writes: >>>> >>>>> void OPPROTO op_tasb_rN(void) >>>>> { >>>>> - cond_t(*(int8_t *) env->gregs[PARAM1] == 0); >>>>> - *(int8_t *) env->gregs[PARAM1] |= 0x80; >>>>> + cond_t((env->gregs[PARAM1] && 0xff) == 0); >>>>> + *(int8_t *) &env->gregs[PARAM1] |= 0x80; >>>> That does not make any sense at all. The TAS insn operates on memory, >>>> not on a register (atomic operations only make sense on memory anyway). >>> SH4 documentation says this: >>> >>> TAS.B @Rn >>> If (Rn) = 0, 1 → T, else 0 → T >>> 1 → MSB of (Rn) >>> >>> So indeed it looks like Jan and Andrzej patch is wrong. >> At least the audience is finally listening. ;) >> >> Is this one better? > > I suspect one of these may be more correct, but I haven't seen the > docs. The below, like the original version, assumes that if the store > generates some kind of trap, the flag is still affected. Otherwise > cond_t needs to be the last. > > diff --git a/target-sh4/op.c b/target-sh4/op.c > --- a/target-sh4/op.c > +++ b/target-sh4/op.c > @@ -592,13 +592,6 @@ void OPPROTO op_shlr16_Rn(void) > RETURN(); > } > > -void OPPROTO op_tasb_rN(void) > -{ > - cond_t((env->gregs[PARAM1] & 0xff) == 0); > - *(int8_t *) &env->gregs[PARAM1] |= 0x80; > - RETURN(); > -} > - > void OPPROTO op_movl_T0_rN(void) > { > env->gregs[PARAM1] = T0; > diff --git a/target-sh4/translate.c b/target-sh4/translate.c > --- a/target-sh4/translate.c > +++ b/target-sh4/translate.c > @@ -1077,7 +1077,12 @@ void _decode_opc(DisasContext * ctx) > gen_op_shlr16_Rn(REG(B11_8)); > return; > case 0x401b: /* tas.b @Rn */ > - gen_op_tasb_rN(REG(B11_8)); > + gen_op_movl_rN_T0(REG(B11_8)); > + gen_op_movl_T0_T1(); > + gen_op_ldub_T0_T0(ctx); > + gen_op_cmp_eq_imm_T0(0); > + gen_op_or_imm_T0(0x80); > + gen_op_stb_T0_T1(ctx); > return; > case 0xf00d: /* fsts FPUL,FRn - FPSCR: Nothing */ > gen_op_movl_fpul_FT0(); > > or > > diff --git a/target-sh4/op.c b/target-sh4/op.c > --- a/target-sh4/op.c > +++ b/target-sh4/op.c > @@ -592,13 +592,6 @@ void OPPROTO op_shlr16_Rn(void) > RETURN(); > } > > -void OPPROTO op_tasb_rN(void) > -{ > - cond_t((env->gregs[PARAM1] & 0xff) == 0); > - *(int8_t *) &env->gregs[PARAM1] |= 0x80; > - RETURN(); > -} > - > void OPPROTO op_movl_T0_rN(void) > { > env->gregs[PARAM1] = T0; > diff --git a/target-sh4/op_mem.c b/target-sh4/op_mem.c > --- a/target-sh4/op_mem.c > +++ b/target-sh4/op_mem.c > @@ -76,3 +76,10 @@ void glue(op_stfq_DT0_T1, MEMSUFFIX) (void) { > glue(stfq, MEMSUFFIX) (T1, DT0); > RETURN(); > } > + > +void glue(op_tasb_Rn, MEMSUFFIX) (void) { > + uint8_t val = glue(ldub, MEMSUFFIX) (env->gregs[PARAM1]); > + cond_t(val == 0); > + glue(stb, MEMSUFFIX) (env->gregs[PARAM1], val | 0x80); > + RETURN(); > +} > diff --git a/target-sh4/translate.c b/target-sh4/translate.c > --- a/target-sh4/translate.c > +++ b/target-sh4/translate.c > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ static void sh4_translate_init() > gen_op_st##width##_##reg##_T1_raw(); \ > } > > +void gen_op_tasb_Rn(DisasContext *ctx, int reg) { > + gen_op_tasb_Rn_raw(reg); > +} > + > #else > > #define GEN_OP_LD(width, reg) \ > @@ -93,6 +97,13 @@ static void sh4_translate_init() > else gen_op_st##width##_##reg##_T1_user();\ > } > > +void gen_op_tasb_Rn(DisasContext *ctx, int reg) { > + if (ctx->memidx) > + gen_op_tasb_Rn_kernel(reg); > + else > + gen_op_tasb_Rn_user(reg); > +} > + > #endif > > GEN_OP_LD(ub, T0) > @@ -1077,7 +1088,7 @@ void _decode_opc(DisasContext * ctx) > gen_op_shlr16_Rn(REG(B11_8)); > return; > case 0x401b: /* tas.b @Rn */ > - gen_op_tasb_rN(REG(B11_8)); > + gen_op_tasb_Rn(ctx, REG(B11_8)); > return; > case 0xf00d: /* fsts FPUL,FRn - FPSCR: Nothing */ > gen_op_movl_fpul_FT0(); This proposed fix for an open bug is about to be forgotten again. Can anyone with SH4 experience comment on it? Jan