From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B1CC433EF for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88EAD60F70 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:06:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 88EAD60F70 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=eik.bme.hu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33446 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meNHX-0002FQ-Kd for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:06:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49158) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meNE5-0007xp-1I; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:02:45 -0400 Received: from zero.eik.bme.hu ([152.66.115.2]:26996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meNE0-0005nU-GT; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:02:44 -0400 Received: from zero.eik.bme.hu (blah.eik.bme.hu [152.66.115.182]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F17317475FA; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by zero.eik.bme.hu (Postfix, from userid 432) id CE4D4746333; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zero.eik.bme.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF707462D3; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 22:02:36 +0200 (CEST) From: BALATON Zoltan To: Richard Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/33] target/ppc: Implement Vector Insert from GPR using GPR index insns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20211021194547.672988-1-matheus.ferst@eldorado.org.br> <20211021194547.672988-16-matheus.ferst@eldorado.org.br> <0581a10f-1411-a174-5869-4fe0999132f3@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received-SPF: pass client-ip=152.66.115.2; envelope-from=balaton@eik.bme.hu; helo=zero.eik.bme.hu X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: lucas.castro@eldorado.org.br, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, groug@kaod.org, luis.pires@eldorado.org.br, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, matheus.ferst@eldorado.org.br, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Sat, 23 Oct 2021, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/23/21 3:12 AM, BALATON Zoltan wrote: >> You mentioning target_ulong reminded me a question I had. Currently we have >> qemu-system-ppc and qemu-system-ppc64 but the latter includes all machines >> of the former too so you could run for example sam460ex with >> qemu-system-ppc64 (except mac99 which behaves differently based on which >> executable it's part of but you could use mac99 -cpu G4 with >> qemu-system-ppc64 as well). But isn't target_ulong different in these >> executables and could that cause a problem with this? I've always used >> qemu-system-ppc for 32 bit machines but we could have one just executable >> for all machines if there's no need for both. > > Yes, we can, and probably should, have one executable for all PPC system > emulation. RISCV is actively working toward that, and I think it would be > fairly easy for ARM and x86 to follow. > > It's something relatively easy to do that reduces the size of the test > matrix. So may question was not if it's possible but if having target_ulong different from what we had in qemu-system-ppc could cause any problems? I have no experience running 32-bit guests with qemu-system-ppc64 but previously when this came up one difference pointed out was that target_ulong would change if I remember the discussion correctly, but nobody now if that could be a problem. Regards, BALATON Zoltan