From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ive3M-0002RL-OZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:19:04 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ive3K-0002OU-Ov for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:19:03 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ive3K-0002OG-Dg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:19:02 -0500 Received: from honiara.magic.fr ([195.154.193.36]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ive3J-0003td-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:19:02 -0500 Received: from [172.17.17.137] (gw.netgem.com [195.68.2.34]) by honiara.magic.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lANJIxWL011290 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:18:59 +0100 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu hw/ppc_oldworld.c target-ppc/cpu.h target-... From: Jocelyn Mayer In-Reply-To: <200711231910.22296.paul@codesourcery.com> References: <200711231822.53015.paul@codesourcery.com> <1195843374.24939.22.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com> <200711231910.22296.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:19:02 +0100 Message-Id: <1195845542.24939.28.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: l_indien@magic.fr, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 19:10 +0000, Paul Brook wrote: > > > The old code before the patch is obviously broken. It's mixing 64-bit > > > (ppc_gpr_t) and 32-bit (target_ulong) values. > > > > It seems you do not understand that what was done was correct. It's not > > mixing two different types. GPR are of ppc_gpr_t type and should be > > displayed this way. > > It's not garbage. On 64 bits hosts, the 64 bits GPR dump is correct. GPR > > _are 64 bits_ when compiling the ppcemb target and should be displayed > > as 64 bits value. > > Really? Where exactly is the code that uses a 64-bit ppc_gpr_t ? > I don't see any evidence that the high bits of the value is ever used. > > I see the SPE stuff that uses T0_64 et al, however this still uses stores the > value in the low 32 bits of the {gpr,gprth} pair. Whatever, your patch is more buggy that the code that previously exists then it will be reverted. The real issues will be addressed, in a cleaver way (I hope) by someone who really understands what the code is supposed to do. But the more important issue is: DO NOT COMMIT IN THE CODE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CHANGE WITHOUT REQUESTING AN AGREEMENT. This is not negociable AT ALL. -- Jocelyn Mayer