From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LM4du-0000yk-N4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:02:34 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LM4dt-0000xM-Bl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:02:34 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32789 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LM4dt-0000xG-6R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:02:33 -0500
Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com ([209.85.218.12]:52859)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1LM4ds-00074w-Kt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:02:32 -0500
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so20398170bwz.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580901111001t2a84c963n9a1efaeaf0ee17b0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:01:57 +0200
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <496A2BE4.9040504@jermar.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <496A2BE4.9040504@jermar.eu>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [BUG] Possible bug in sparc64 emulation of
	SAVE/RESTORE
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: Jakub Jermar <jakub@jermar.eu>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 1/11/09, Jakub Jermar <jakub@jermar.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I've just noticed that functions:
>
>  helper_save()
>  helper_restore()
>  cpu_cwp_inc()
>  cpu_cwp_dec
>
>  assume that CWP moves counter-clock-wise on sparc64.
>  I am pretty sure it moves clock-wise on sparc64
>  (contrary to the situation on sparc32).

True, but internally we use V8 way to make register window handling
simpler. Outside world should see CWP acting as specified.

There is a comment about this somewhere, maybe it is unclear.