From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J8XmZ-00061g-5J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:15:03 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J8XmW-0005u2-2o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:15:02 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8XmV-0005ti-Uc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:14:59 -0500 Received: from mk-outboundfilter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.23]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J8XmW-0007Pr-0e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:15:00 -0500 From: Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] MIPS COP1X (and related) instructions References: <87hci36mr3.fsf@firetop.home> <20071229013338.GA18467@networkno.de> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:14:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20071229013338.GA18467@networkno.de> (Thiemo Seufer's message of "Sat\, 29 Dec 2007 01\:33\:38 +0000") Message-ID: <8763yh7tgx.fsf@firetop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thiemo Seufer Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Thiemo Seufer writes: > Richard Sandiford wrote: >> All MIPS COP1X instructions currently require the FPU to be in 64-bit >> mode. My understanding is that this is too restrictive, and that the >> base conditions are different for different revisions of the ISA: >> >> MIPS IV: >> COP1X instructions are available when the XX (CU3) bit of the >> status register is set. This bit can be set independently of >> UX and FR, and controls the core MIPS IV instructions as well >> as the FPU ones. > > This part is, sadly, not fully correct. It depends on the CPU > implementation what effect, the CU3 bit has. IIRC it behaves on some > CPUs as you describe, while it is a nop on others. Sorry. I'll take your word for it. > (I don't know offhand which CPU did what there.) (FWIW, the r10k and VR5500 do as described, and I'm pretty sure the RM7000 and RM9000 did too.) > Looks reasonable to me, apart from that one misassumption. What should the patch do instead for MIPS IV? Enable them unconditionally? Richard