On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:59:00PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > On 06/10/2016 17:41, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 6 October 2016 at 16:36, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 06/10/2016 16:11, Greg Kurz wrote: > >>> FWIW, Cedric had another proposal which apparently went unnoticed: > >>> > >>> <fc24ad74-da26-a713-9312-a2c2d07fb...@kaod.org> > >>> > >>> The idea is to add an optional endianness argument to the read*/write* > >>> commands in the qtest protocol: > >>> - libqtest then provides explicit _le and _be APIs > >>> - no extra byteswap is performed on the test program side: qtest > >>> actually handles that and does exactly 1 or 0 byteswap. > >>> - it does not use memread/memwrite > >>> - the current 'guest native' API where qtest tswaps is preserved > >>> > >> > >> No, this is a worse idea, because the right place to do the swap is in > >> the "program" (libqtest) not in the "CPU" (QEMU). > > > > Speaking of the right place to do things, perhaps we should > > reimplement qtest_big_endian() in libqtest.c to send a query > > to the QEMU-under-test to ask it what TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN says, > > rather than hardcoding a big list of architectures... > > Yes, it's a good idea.
I disagree.
TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN is simply not well defined - we should avoid using
it at all.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
