> On May 11, 2013, 7:49 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > util/m5/m5op_arm.S, line 55 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1862/diff/1/?file=35370#file35370line55> > > > > Do you want this? What happens in the case of ARM code (not thumb). > > Isn't the push unaligned? > >
.align 2 aligns to the next 2^2 boundary, so it should be safe in both ARM and Thumb mode. I'm entirely sure if it's needed, but it's definitely not harmful. - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1862/#review4330 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 7, 2013, 5:43 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1862/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 7, 2013, 5:43 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9686:5708a2e568c9 > --------------------------- > arm: Fix compilation error in m5 utility > > Changeset 5ca6098b9560 accidentally broke the m5 utility. This > changeset adds the missing co-processor call used to trigger the > pseudo-op in ARM mode and fixes an alignment issue that caused some > pseudo-ops to leave thumb mode. > > > Diffs > ----- > > util/m5/m5op_arm.S eb075b2b925a > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1862/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Tested tested a couple of different pseudo ops in SE mode. Use both the Thumb > version and the ARM version of the library. > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Sandberg > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
