From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvIDj-0003Mz-CG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvIDh-0008Uu-Ie for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:50:43 -0500 Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.143]:46979) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvIDg-0008US-Qx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:50:41 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:44:26 +1000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 11:26:09 +1100 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20120209002609.GH11852@truffala.fritz.box> References: <1328680437-31779-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20120208104840.GG11852@truffala.fritz.box> <20120208142735.3bbc7cd6@BR8GGW75.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120208142735.3bbc7cd6@BR8GGW75.de.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] PPC64: Add support for ldbrx and stdbrx instructions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 02:27:35PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > Am Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:48:40 +1100 > schrieb David Gibson : > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:54:21AM +0400, malc wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > From: Thomas Huth > > > > > > > > These instructions for loading and storing byte-swapped 64-bit values have > > > > been introduced in PowerISA 2.06. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > > > > --- > > > > target-ppc/translate.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > I seem to recall that POWER5 machine i had access to didn't have > > > ld/stdbrx while CBE did have it (or was it the other way around?) > > > so question is - is PPC_64B sufficient? > > > > Ah, I think it's not. I think I spotted that before, but then forgot > > about it. Thanks for the reminder. > > Maybe it's a better idea to use PPC_64BX here? ... but that flag seems > to be missing in POWERPC_INSNS_POWER7... David, could PPC_64BX also be > included in that flag list? Um.. what exactly do you mean by 64BX? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson