From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52485) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bd3Yr-0003uS-8z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:55:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bd3Yp-0003Gc-2h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:55:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <945CA755-7606-46CD-B095-95F87663A792@gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: G 3 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:55:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Effective way to test PowerPC lwbrx instruction List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, QEMU Developers On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 25.08.2016 14:54, G 3 wrote: >> I'm chasing down a bug with QEMU that causes audio to fail on a >> Mac OS >> guest. In this file: >> https://github.com/nixxcode/AppleUSBAudio-273.4.1/blob/master/ >> AppleUSBAudioClip.cpp >> is where a lot of assembly language code is located. I think one >> or more >> of the PowerPC instructions might be incorrectly implemented so I am >> checking each one that the file uses. Starting with lwbrx I made this >> program that gives this instruction sample inputs and checks them >> with >> real outputs. According to the program QEMU implements this >> instruction >> correctly. Does this program effectively check the lwbrx >> instruction or >> is it missing something? > ... >> // Go thru each rA value >> for(rA = 0; rA <=12; rA=rA+4) >> { >> // set the correct answer array for each rA value >> if(rA == 0) >> answer_array = answer_array0; >> else if(rA == 4) >> answer_array = answer_array4; >> else if(rA == 8) >> answer_array = answer_array8; >> else >> answer_array = answer_array12; >> >> // Go thru each rB value >> for(index = 0; index < rB_size; index++) >> { >> asm volatile("lwbrx %0, %1, %2" : "=r" (result) : "b >> %" (rA), >> "r" (&(rB[index]))); > > I think you're not testing the case where rA is r0 here (only where > the > content of rA is 0) ... and rA == r0 is a special case for this > instruction, see the PowerISA for details. So you'd need a separate > asm > volatile statement to test this. > (Also a question: What is the "%" here good for? I did not quite > understand why you're using that here) > > Thomas Thank you very much for commenting. For the case where rA is r0, are you saying something like this: asm volatile("lwbrx %0, 0, %1" : "=r" (result) : "r" (&(rB[index]))); http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:Z7TDqMWVLZ0J:https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/ ssw_aix_71/com.ibm.aix.alangref/idalangref_lwbrx_lbx_lwbri_instrs.htm% 2Blwbrx+powerpc&client=safari&rls=en&hl=en&ct=clnk Didn't find the text 'r0' here, but it did mention this: "If GPR RA is 0, then the EA is the contents of GPR RB". Is that the same thing? The percent is for me to quickly see if any of the test failed. QEMU is at 100% for this test.