On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use stq_* for 64 bit stores.
I changed also uses of 64 bit loads to ldq. But it looks like this
makes OpenBIOS trigger alignment traps, this is the same reason why
the alignment checks aren't fully enabled. So I can't commit this yet
except for
On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Blue Swirl wrote:
>
> >On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Should the address be 64 bit alligned? i.e. T0 & ~7 rather than T0 & ~3?
> >>
> >>Should these unaligned address cause traps?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but the c
Blue Swirl wrote:
On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should the address be 64 bit alligned? i.e. T0 & ~7 rather than T0 & ~3?
Should these unaligned address cause traps?
Yes, but the checks are already generated from translate.c
(gen_op_check_align_T0_7).
De we
On 10/14/07, Robert Reif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use stq_* for 64 bit stores.
This could be less optimal for 32 bit hosts, but hopefully the
compiler knows its business.
> This fixes one bug where T1 was used twice rather than T1 and T2.
Great!
> Should the address be 64 bit alligned? i.e
Use stq_* for 64 bit stores.
This fixes one bug where T1 was used twice rather than T1 and T2.
Should the address be 64 bit alligned? i.e. T0 & ~7 rather than T0 & ~3?
Should these unaligned address cause traps?
Index: target-sparc/op_helper.c
=
