On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Alistair Francis
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2017 01:29 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Richard Henderson
>>>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 01:29 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Richard Henderson
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2017 01:13 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> +
On 08/11/2017 01:29 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2017 01:13 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> +tcg_gen_ext_i64(val, val, memop);
What is this addition intended to
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 01:13 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
+tcg_gen_ext_i64(val, val, memop);
>>>
>>> What is this addition intended to accomplish? Because of the position
>>> within
>>> the code,
On 08/11/2017 01:13 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> +tcg_gen_ext_i64(val, val, memop);
>>
>> What is this addition intended to accomplish? Because of the position within
>> the code, you know that memop contains MO_64, so that this is a no-op.
>
> This is when size == 2 so it's a
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 11:19 AM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> The exclusive store operation should return 0 if the operation updates
>> memory and 1 if it doesn't. This means that storing tmp in the rd
>> register is
On 08/11/2017 11:19 AM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> The exclusive store operation should return 0 if the operation updates
> memory and 1 if it doesn't. This means that storing tmp in the rd
> register is incorrect.
I'm confused as to what you believe is wrong.
>
The exclusive store operation should return 0 if the operation updates
memory and 1 if it doesn't. This means that storing tmp in the rd
register is incorrect.
This patch updates the succesful opertion to store 0 into the rd
register instead of tmp. It also adds a branch to fail if the memory