From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45509) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rv7Yw-0000Ke-0o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:28:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rv7Yo-0007aH-CP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:27:53 -0500 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.110]:39026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rv7Yo-0007Zc-4C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:27:46 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:27:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:27:35 +0100 From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <20120208142735.3bbc7cd6@BR8GGW75.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20120208104840.GG11852@truffala.fritz.box> References: <1328680437-31779-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20120208104840.GG11852@truffala.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] PPC64: Add support for ldbrx and stdbrx instructions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:48:40 +1100 schrieb David Gibson : > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:54:21AM +0400, malc wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > From: Thomas Huth > > > > > > These instructions for loading and storing byte-swapped 64-bit values have > > > been introduced in PowerISA 2.06. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > > > --- > > > target-ppc/translate.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > I seem to recall that POWER5 machine i had access to didn't have > > ld/stdbrx while CBE did have it (or was it the other way around?) > > so question is - is PPC_64B sufficient? > > Ah, I think it's not. I think I spotted that before, but then forgot > about it. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe it's a better idea to use PPC_64BX here? ... but that flag seems to be missing in POWERPC_INSNS_POWER7... David, could PPC_64BX also be included in that flag list? Thomas