Le 05/09/2022 à 22:43, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 04:15:07PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> + if ((insn & 3) == 1) {
>>>>> + *type = INSN_CALL;
>>>>> + *immediate = insn & 0x3fffffc;
>>>>> + if (*immediate & 0x2000000)
>>>>> + *immediate -= 0x4000000;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Does this handle AA=1 correctly at all? That is valid both with and
>>> without relocations, just like AA=0. Same for AA=1 LK=0 btw.
>>>
>>> If you only handle AA=0, the code should explicitly test for that.
>>
>> The code does test for AA=0 LK=1 with the if statement there?
>
> Yes, but that is not what I said :-)
>
> It may be fine to not *handle* AA=1 at all, but the code should at least
> scream bloody murder when it encounters it anyway :-)
>
By the way, I proposed a cleanup patch that handles it, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/ebe11b73d1015a17034a2c4bedf093fa57f5d29f.1662032631.git.christophe.le...@csgroup.eu/
Christophe
