Re: [PATCH 2/3] MIPS: Add full ISA emulator.

[Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@imgtec.com>]

By all means I don't really understand the whole issues surrounding this 
but this approach looks better to me as well. It seems more generic and 
future proof and at least I can understand the patch series.

But did I say I don't understand all of this? Would be nice to hear from 
more people :)

Qais

On 12/04/2014 10:16 AM, Paul Burton wrote:
> Nice work David, I like this approach. It's so much simpler than hacking
> atop the current dsemul code. I also imagine this could be reused for
> emulation of instructions removed in r6, when running pre-r6 userland
> binaries on r6 systems.
>
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 06:21:36PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
>> On 12/03/2014 05:56 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
>>> I see only two technical issues here which differs:
>>>
>>> 1.  You believe your GCC experts, I trust HW Architecture manual and
>>> don't trust toolchain people too much ==> we see a different value in
>>> fact that your approach has a subset of emulated ISAs (and it can't, of
>>> course, emulate anything because some custom opcodes are reused).
>> Yes, I agree that the emulation approach cannot handle some of the cases you
>> mention (most would have to be the result of hand coded assembly
>> specifically trying to break it).
> I'm not sure I'd agree even with that - ASEs & vendor-specific
> instructions could easily be added if necessary.
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:56:51PM -0800, Leonid Yehoshin wrote:
>>> 2.  My approach is ready to use and is used right now, you still have a
>>> framework which passed an initial boot.
> Subjective.
>
> Thanks,
>      Paul