On 7 July 2017 at 18:32, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > Given the wording of: > > /* is_jmp field values */ > #define DISAS_NEXT 0 /* next instruction can be analyzed */ > #define DISAS_JUMP 1 /* only pc was modified dynamically */ > #define DISAS_UPDATE 2 /* cpu state was modified dynamically */ > #define DISAS_TB_JUMP 3 /* only pc was modified statically */ > > I'm thinking that really these DISAS_JUMP's should be DISAS_UPDATEs and > we need to disable the TB chaining optimisations for this. I'll prepare > a more comprehensive series next week. However testing this patch for > known failure modes will be useful.
The problem I think is that a lot of our current code assumes that DISAS_UPDATE means "go back to the top loop". In any case I think you are right that DISAS_UPDATE should not allow chaining to the next TB, because it implies that perhaps a TB flags bit got changed, so you need to look in the hash table again. thanks -- PMM
