From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ivdv2-00037d-7C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:10:28 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ivdv0-000378-QK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:10:27 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivdv0-000375-OT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:10:26 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1Ivdv0-0001O4-6E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:10:26 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu hw/ppc_oldworld.c target-ppc/cpu.h target-...
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:10:21 +0000
References: <E1IvcOv-0004NQ-4K@localhost.localdomain>
	<200711231822.53015.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<1195843374.24939.22.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com>
In-Reply-To: <1195843374.24939.22.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200711231910.22296.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, l_indien@magic.fr

> > 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.

Paul