From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ItKgz-0004PZ-1E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:14:25 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ItKgx-0004Ll-7Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:14:24 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ItKgx-0004La-3E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:14:23 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ItKgx-0000qo-1b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:14:23 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so707103uge for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:14:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:14:19 +0100 From: "andrzej zaborowski" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu softmmu_template.h In-Reply-To: <1195293653.5335.27.camel@rapid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1195293653.5335.27.camel@rapid> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 17/11/2007, J. Mayer wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 09:53 +0000, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote: > > CVSROOT: /sources/qemu > > Module name: qemu > > Changes by: Andrzej Zaborowski 07/11/17 09:53:42 > > > > Modified files: > > . : softmmu_template.h > > > > Log message: > > Check permissions for the last byte first in unaligned slow_st accesses (patch from TeLeMan). > > > > CVSWeb URLs: > > http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/softmmu_template.h?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.19&r2=1.20 > > > > Has it been checked that it's legal for all architectures and cannot > have any nasty side effect to do accesses in the reverse order ? Real > hardware do not ever seem to do this... For real hardware the store is a single operation. Logically it shouldn't have any side effects, but if it does then it would rather mean that other code for that architecture is (also) broken, I believe. I've only tested ARM, mips, x86 and x86_64 before committing, so please test. I figured that the patch won't get any comments on the mailing list if it isn't merged. Regards