At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:31:52 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, 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 zero automatic
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, wrote:
> At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:18 +0200,
> Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, wrote:
>> > At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
>> > Blue Swirl wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, wrote:
>> >> > At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:2
At Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:38:18 +0200,
Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, wrote:
> > At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
> > Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, wrote:
> >> > At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:09:28 +0100,
> >> > Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> >> >> >> N
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:13 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
> Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, 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 t
Hi,
At Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:34:10 +0300,
Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, 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 prob
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:48 PM, 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 se
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.
>
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 10:57:19 +0200,
Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Tsuneo Saito 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
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Tsuneo Saito 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 are FP instruct
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
