On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 13:33, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/02/18 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote: > > @@ -829,7 +840,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error > > **errp) > > * Presence of EL2 itself is ARM_FEATURE_EL2, and of the > > * Security Extensions is ARM_FEATURE_EL3. > > */ > > - assert(cpu_isar_feature(arm_div, cpu)); > > + assert(no_aa32 || cpu_isar_feature(arm_div, cpu)); > > The assertion above fails on my AArch64 host (APM Mustang A3). Meaning > that my host CPU supports AArch32, but lacks "arm_div".
Hi; I just realized we left this assertion-failure bug report unaddressed, so I had a look at it. I tried to repro on my Mustang, but this works for me. A CPU with AArch32 but without the Arm-mode division instructions would be non-compliant (and very obviously so if tested), so I suspect the actual problem is not with the hardware but with the kernel not correctly reporting the ID registers to QEMU. What kernel version are you using? > Better yet: can we rework the code to emit a warning, rather than > aborting QEMU? Assertions are not the best tool IMHO for catching > unusual (or slightly non-conformant / early) hardware.) The intention of the assertion really is to catch QEMU bugs where we got the ID register values wrong in our emulated CPUs. Perhaps we should relax all these assertions to only testing if we're using TCG, not KVM ? thanks -- PMM
