From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJVrt-0001MV-4l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:53:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJVrk-00023m-Nv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:53:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]:61728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJVrk-00023Z-IG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:52:56 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id m16so1961464ieq.32 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <522F94B2.5030300@twiddle.net> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:52:50 -0700 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5217BC5F.4060306@twiddle.net> <5217C94F.6010607@weilnetz.de> <5217D1A7.6000003@twiddle.net> <522F907F.4090600@weilnetz.de> In-Reply-To: <522F907F.4090600@weilnetz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] TCI for ARM and other hosts with aligned args List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: qemu-devel , Aurelien Jarno On 09/10/2013 02:34 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > For native compilations, TCG_TARGET_CALL_ALIGN_ARGS can be set from > configure. Cross compilations cannot set that macro automatically > (or is there some way to do this?) I can't think of a way that would be reasonable from configure. > Should we use this mechanism for all hosts (and move the definitions in > tcg-target.h to a conditional definition in tcg.h), or should we use it only for TCI? I'd prefer a common solution, but it's something easy to get wrong if there are multiple ABIs in play, e.g. PPC32. Perhaps let's start with just TCI. > The alpha disassembler does not work on 32 bit hosts, > therefore debugging is difficult. It works on i386. What's your "not working" test case? r~