On Fri, 22 May 2020 23:33:18 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
> instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or if
> using a u32 * we incremented that pointer by 1.
>
> But prefixed instructions make it more complicate
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:33 PM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
> instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or if
> using a u32 * we incremented that pointer by 1.
>
> But prefixed instructions make it more complicated
Nicholas Piggin writes:
> Excerpts from Nicholas Piggin's message of May 24, 2020 9:56 am:
>> Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of May 22, 2020 11:33 pm:
>>> In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
>>> instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or i
Excerpts from Nicholas Piggin's message of May 24, 2020 9:56 am:
> Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of May 22, 2020 11:33 pm:
>> In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
>> instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or if
>> using a u32 * we incremen
Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of May 22, 2020 11:33 pm:
> In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
> instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or if
> using a u32 * we incremented that pointer by 1.
>
> But prefixed instructions make it more com
In a few places we want to calculate the address of the next
instruction. Previously that was simple, we just added 4 bytes, or if
using a u32 * we incremented that pointer by 1.
But prefixed instructions make it more complicated, we need to advance
by either 4 or 8 bytes depending on the actual i
