From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53820)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TI0j7-0007KW-1T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:21:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TI0j5-0006P9-SE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:21:16 -0400
Received: from mail-da0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:54220)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TI0j5-0006P5-Ly
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:21:15 -0400
Received: by dadn15 with SMTP id n15so997107dad.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50672E12.5090302@twiddle.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:21:22 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1348710942-3040-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<1348710942-3040-10-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<CAAu8pHsmFpJX7fRO6-_Jx8v2wFtcooVXysEcaaV7XechUQACgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHsmFpJX7fRO6-_Jx8v2wFtcooVXysEcaaV7XechUQACgg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/12] tcg-sparc: Drop use of Bicc in favor
	of BPcc
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 2012-09-29 05:07, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
>> Now that we're always sparcv9, we can not bother using Bicc for
>> 32-bit branches and BPcc for 64-bit branches and instead always
>> use BPcc.
> 
> But then the branch range is smaller (19 bits). The code buffer is
> 32M, wouldn't we use BPcc for TB linking too and then the range could
> be exceed?

We use CALL for TB linking, with its 30 bit range.

BPcc is only needed within a TB, which should never come close to 2MB.


r~