On 24/06/16 17:01, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/06/16 13:34, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4q...@gmail.com>
---
target-sparc/translate.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target-sparc/translate.c b/target-sparc/translate.c
index 5111cf0..065326c 100644
--- a/target-sparc/translate.c
+++ b/target-sparc/translate.c
@@ -5187,12 +5187,15 @@ printf("ops, illegal rdhpr\n");
case 0xd: /* ldstub -- XXX: should be atomically */
{
TCGv r_const;
+ TCGv tmp = tcg_temp_new();
gen_address_mask(dc, cpu_addr);
- tcg_gen_qemu_ld8u(cpu_val, cpu_addr,
dc->mem_idx);
+ tcg_gen_qemu_ld8u(tmp, cpu_addr, dc->mem_idx);
r_const = tcg_const_tl(0xff);
tcg_gen_qemu_st8(r_const, cpu_addr, dc->mem_idx);
+ tcg_gen_mov_tl(cpu_val, tmp);
tcg_temp_free(r_const);
+ tcg_temp_free(tmp);
}
break;
case 0x0f:
Looks like you beat me to it - I can confirm that this fixes the issue here
for me. Whilst testing I noticed another regression under qemu-system-sparc,
however bisection reveals that this isn't caused by a SPARC-specific patch
(and can be followed up separately) so:
Tested-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
Good. Then we can route it via your tree. (With Richard's Reviewed-by)
I'm still worried why it didn't hit us before.
Oops, looks like our mails overlapped. In that case I'll send a pull
request ASAP.
ATB,
Mark.