https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360008

Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |CONFIRMED
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #6 from Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> ---
> * typo in power64-core.xml : typo: regect -> reject    FIXED

> * powerpc-altivec64l-valgrind.xml : I am not sure to fully understand why we 
> have 2 new 
> includes for power64-core2-valgrind-s1.xml and power64-core2-valgrind-s1.xml, 
> but there was
> no addition of power64-core2.xml after power-fpu.xml : normally, the s1 and 
> s2 files should be
> similar in structure to the 'non shadow' register files. I see that the 
> power64-core2*xml files are
> defining the shadow registers for e.g. pc/msr/cr while the equivalent non 
> shadow registers are
> in power64-core.xml It is unclear to me why the shadow registers for these 
> cannot be defined 
> in files that are 'similar in structure' to the non shadow files. 

 In  power64-core.xml, there is a comment about why the GPRs and pc/msr/cr have
to be in that file.   In  power64-core-valgrind-s*xml, I tried to explain why
the definitions of the pc/msr/cr registers had to be moved to 
power64-core2-valgrind-s*xml but I guess the explanation wasn't clear. 

I reworked the comments in the power64-core-valgrind-s*xml files to try and
make the explanation clearer.  Obviously, I didn't get the message across the
first time.  I think the reworked comments are a lot better.  See what you
think.

> * valgrind-low-ppc64.c : typos fpmap -> fp map lower lower -> lower psuedo -> 
> pseudo (twice this typo) remove final , after + { "vs31h", 10720, 64 },   
> FIXED

> * valgrind-low-ppc64.c : we have a bunch of lines that are (almost) 
> duplicated for big/little ....
Good suggestion, I added two variables low_offset and high_offset and then set
them using the ifdefs for big and little endian.  That way we have the one copy
of the code which uses low_offset and high_offset to index the correct 64-bits
in the 128-bit array.  The code is much cleaner and more compact.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.

Reply via email to