From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KiG7B-0004qQ-LO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:12:13 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KiG78-0004no-T7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:12:12 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57994 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KiG78-0004nf-Ei
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:12:10 -0400
Received: from csl.cornell.edu ([128.84.224.10]:2010 helo=vlsi.csl.cornell.edu)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <vince@stanley.csl.cornell.edu>) id 1KiG78-0003SU-7G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:12:10 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vince@csl.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [5283] Use the new concat_tl_i64 op for std and stda
In-Reply-To: <200809232259.24692.paul@codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <20080923180629.I10486@stanley.csl.cornell.edu>
References: <20080923174506.X10311@stanley.csl.cornell.edu>
	<200809232259.24692.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Paul Brook wrote:

> On Tuesday 23 September 2008, Vince Weaver wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> the aforementioned patch broke the spec2k crafty benchmark on
>> sparc32plus-linux-user (I'm running on x86_64 but I don't think it makes a
>> difference).
>
> Are you sure? I've double checked the patch and I still think it is correct.

Yes.  The program definitely works if I revert the patch, but fails if I 
re-apply it.

>> The new code generates:
>>     movi_i64 tmp12,$0x20
>>     shl_i64 tmp10,loc4,tmp12
>>     or_i64 tmp2,tmp0,tmp10
>>     qemu_st64 tmp2,loc5,$0x0
>
> The extension should be immediately before the code you quote here.

Nope, in both cases the preceeding code is identical:

OP after la:
  movi_i64 tmp8,$0x13bc00
  mov_i64 g1,tmp8
  movi_i64 tmp10,$0x268
  add_i64 loc5,g1,tmp10
  ld_i64 loc4,regwptr,$0x0
  movi_i64 pc,$0x27e78
  movi_i64 npc,$0x27e7c
  movi_i64 tmp10,$0xffffffff
  and_i64 loc5,loc5,tmp10
  movi_i32 tmp11,$0x7
  movi_i64 tmp10,$helper_check_align
  call tmp10,$0x0,$0,loc5,tmp11
  ld_i64 tmp0,regwptr,$0x8

The code in question is:

IN: InitializeMasks
0x0000000000027e74:  sethi  %hi(0x13bc00), %g1
0x0000000000027e78:  std  %o0, [ %g1 + 0x268 ]  ! 0x13be68
0x0000000000027e7c:  call  0x22eac
0x0000000000027e80:  mov  3, %o0


I can create a small assembly language program that duplicates the problem 
if it would help debugging it.

Vince