On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Nice series!
May I ask what have you used as
At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:18 +0200,
Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
Mark
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:18 +0200,
Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com
At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:31:52 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
The softmmu version of current implementation is incorrect.
Nonfaulting loads should generate exceptions in the same way as
normal loads. The CPU hardware should not return
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Tsuneo Saito tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch series implements sparcv9 stfa/ldfa instructions with
non block-transfer ASIs that implementations seem to be left unfinished.
This patch also adds fp_disabled exception checks on stfa/ldfa
as they
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:57:19 +0200,
Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Tsuneo Saito tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch series implements sparcv9 stfa/ldfa instructions with
non block-transfer ASIs that implementations seem to be left unfinished.
This
On 13/07/11 12:06, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice series!
May I ask what have you used as a test case to discover the problem?
I found the problem when I was trying to run the linux/sparc64 kernel.
It seemed that copy_to_user() did not work as expected.
That's good to hear. How far have you
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Nice series!
May I ask what have you used as a test case to discover the problem?
I found the problem when I was trying to run the linux/sparc64 kernel.
It seemed that copy_to_user() did not work as expected.
That's good
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Nice series!
May I ask what have you used as a test case to discover the problem?
I found the problem when I was trying to run the linux/sparc64 kernel.
It
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, tsnsa...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Nice series!
May I ask what have you used as a test case to discover the problem?
I found the problem
Hi,
This patch series implements sparcv9 stfa/ldfa instructions with
non block-transfer ASIs that implementations seem to be left unfinished.
This patch also adds fp_disabled exception checks on stfa/ldfa
as they are FP instructions.
target-sparc/op_helper.c | 31
11 matches
Mail list logo
