On 10/4/24 09:30, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (25):
   gdbstub/helpers: Have ldtul_p() definition use ldn_p()
   target/hexagon: Replace ldtul_p() -> ldl_p()
   target/alpha: Replace ldtul_p() -> ldq_p()
   target/s390x: Replace ldtul_p() -> ldq_p()
   gdbstub/helpers: Introduce ldtul_$endian_p() helpers
   target/alpha: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/hexagon: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   hw/i386: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/i386: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/avr: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   linux-user/i386: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/loongarch: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/sh4: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/tricore: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/rx: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   target/riscv: Use explicit little-endian LD/ST API
   hw/m68k: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   target/m68k: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   hw/sparc: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   target/sparc: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   target/hppa: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   hw/s390x: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   target/s390x: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   target/openrisc: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API
   hw/ppc/e500: Use explicit big-endian LD/ST API

The sh4, rx, and riscv targets *can* support multiple endianness.

While we removed sh4eb for system mode, we still support sh4eb-linux-user, and therefore the target/sh4 patch affecting gdbstub is wrong.

RX sets endianness via a pin sampled at reset; if we ever implement this, it would be via a property on the cpu. RISCV sets endianness via a couple of bits in MSTATUS; system mode would always use little-endian, but riscv64eb-user isn't out of the question.

While we have never supported rx or riscv in big-endian, but there's no reason that we can't, and those target/ patches make things harder. Since target/ will *always* have TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN available, I don't see that we're saving anything there.


r~

Reply via email to