On 4/3/23 11:09, liweiwei wrote:
On 2023/4/3 16:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
cflags |= parallel ? CF_PARALLEL : 0;
cflags |= icount_enabled() ? CF_USE_ICOUNT : 0;
+ tcg_debug_assert(!cpu->tcg_cflags);
cpu->tcg_cflags = cflags;
}
---
Li and Junqiang, what is your use case?
Only few CPUs support CF_PCREL currently. I found this problem when I
tried to introduce PC-relative translation into RISC-V.
Maybe It also can be reproduced in system mode for ARM and X86.
Yes, this can be reproduced on arm-softmmu with --enable-debug-tcg and
the above assertion.
On 4/3/23 10:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
diff --git a/accel/tcg/tcg-accel-ops.c b/accel/tcg/tcg-accel-ops.c
index af35e0d092..58c8e64096 100644
--- a/accel/tcg/tcg-accel-ops.c
+++ b/accel/tcg/tcg-accel-ops.c
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ void tcg_cpu_init_cflags(CPUState *cpu, bool parallel)
cflags |= parallel ? CF_PARALLEL : 0;
cflags |= icount_enabled() ? CF_USE_ICOUNT : 0;
- cpu->tcg_cflags = cflags;
+ cpu->tcg_cflags |= cflags;
This could be acceptable as a release kludge, but semantically
tcg_cpu_init_cflags() is meant to *initialize* all flags, not
set few of them. Either we aren't calling it from the proper place,
or we need to rename it.
Agree, this sounds reasonable. Also, maybe setting
cpu->tcg_cflags from *_cpu_realizefn was not the right call and
we should have some other way of providing target specific cflags.
--
Anton Johansson,
rev.ng Labs Srl.
