From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ih95c-0004Xt-I5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:25:28 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ih95a-0004XE-LR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:25:27 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ih95a-0004X9-8L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:25:26 -0400
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1Ih95a-0005gZ-76
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:25:26 -0400
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 30so1219581nfu
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580710141225t4eca3567t4b106ffc2e0ec5cf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:25:24 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] sparc32 use stq_* for 64bit stores
In-Reply-To: <4712614B.9050908@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4712614B.9050908@earthlink.net>
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

On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Use stq_* for 64 bit stores.

This could be less optimal for 32 bit hosts, but hopefully the
compiler knows its business.

> This fixes one bug where T1 was used twice rather than T1 and T2.

Great!

> Should the address be 64 bit alligned?  i.e. T0 & ~7 rather than T0 & ~3?
>
> Should these unaligned address cause traps?

Yes, but the checks are already generated from translate.c
(gen_op_check_align_T0_7).