On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 07:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> (Which is probably a mistake from a translator point of view -- there's
>> no reason we can't emulate 16-bit operations with 32-bit operations given
>> that the high bits are ignorable.)
>
On 02/08/2011 07:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
(Which is probably a mistake from a translator point of view -- there's
no reason we can't emulate 16-bit operations with 32-bit operations given
that the high bits are ignorable.)
Not really, you never know if the guest is going to use a 66 pref
On 01/10/2011 10:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> mov y,x
>> deposit y,y,x,8,8
>>
>> So I could simply put a tcg_abort there. It would be up to whoever
>> improves the register allocator to provide some mechanism for a
>> backend to allocate a scratch. What do you think?
>>
>
> Do y
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:55:13PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 01:53 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> +if (inout == val) {
> >> +TCGType type = rexw ? TCG_TYPE_I64 : TCG_TYPE_I32;
> >> +TCGRegSet inuse = s->reserved_regs;
> >> +
> >> +tcg_regset_set_reg
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 04:43:22PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 04:16 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > The code being written now or latter doesn't change the question to know
> > if it is always possible to allocate one scratch register here on i386.
>
> Yes.
>
> Here there's onl
On 01/09/2011 04:16 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The code being written now or latter doesn't change the question to know
> if it is always possible to allocate one scratch register here on i386.
Yes.
Here there's only one register that needs to remain live. In the
worst case, we'll spill one li
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:55:13PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 01:53 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> +if (inout == val) {
> >> +TCGType type = rexw ? TCG_TYPE_I64 : TCG_TYPE_I32;
> >> +TCGRegSet inuse = s->reserved_regs;
> >> +
> >> +tcg_regset_set_reg
On 01/09/2011 01:53 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> +if (inout == val) {
>> +TCGType type = rexw ? TCG_TYPE_I64 : TCG_TYPE_I32;
>> +TCGRegSet inuse = s->reserved_regs;
>> +
>> +tcg_regset_set_reg(inuse, inout);
>> +val = tcg_reg_alloc(s, tcg_target_available_regs[ty
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:43:01PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Special case deposits that are implementable with byte and word stores.
> Otherwise implement with double-word shift plus rotates.
>
> Expose tcg_reg_alloc to the backend for allocation of scratch registers.
> There's an edge con
