From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50903)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1bRnac-0007t0-8m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:39:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benh@kernel.crashing.org>) id 1bRnab-0002mR-Ec
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:39:06 -0400
Message-ID: <1469482714.5978.50.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:38:34 +1000
In-Reply-To: <a2742396-81df-79da-f4ff-1361b8cc50c9@twiddle.net>
References: <1469439886.5978.31.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
	<a2742396-81df-79da-f4ff-1361b8cc50c9@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ppc: TCG and FP exceptions, is it right ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org
Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>, Paul Mackerras <pmac@au1.ibm.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@au1.ibm.com>, Fabien Chouteau <chouteau@adacore.com>, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>

On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 19:05 +0530, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > An additional note is that if FE0/FE1 are 0, we still in some case
> > leave an exception behind in cs->exception_index. Now, I *think*
> > that's ok, it will just be silently dropped at some point, but I am n=
ot
> > 100% certain as that's a part of TCG I'm an not super familiar with
> > yet.
>=20
> That should be fine.=C2=A0 All exits from the loop should set a new val=
ue here as=C2=A0
> they exit.

Right though it *might* interact with the trace exception code (single
step), I'll have at to dig a bit.

I suspect I need to produce test cases :-)

Cheers,
Ben.