[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [6967] Temporary workaround for ppc on ppc
From: |
malc |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [6967] Temporary workaround for ppc on ppc |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:01:44 +0400 (MSD) |
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 4/2/09, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/2/09, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Revision: 6967
> > > >
> > http://svn.sv.gnu.org/viewvc/?view=rev&root=qemu&revision=6967
> > > > Author: malc
> > > > Date: 2009-04-02 01:16:39 +0000 (Thu, 02 Apr 2009)
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > -----------
> > > > Temporary workaround for ppc on ppc
> > > >
> > > > target-ppc/translate.c puts values of type opcode_t into .opcodes
> > > > section, using GCC extension to do so, and hoping that this will make
> > > > them appear contiguously and in the source order in the resulting
> > > > executable. This assumption is not safe and is known to be violated
> > > > with certain versions of GCC, certain flags passed to it and on
> > > > certain platforms (gcc 4.3.0, -O and PPC/PPC64 for instance)
> > >
> > > I've always wondered if the section hack was a very clever one or too
> > > clever one, this makes it clear.
> > >
> > > The section uses could be removed by moving the opcode tables towards
> >
> >
> > There are _no_ opcode tables that's why it fails. The code just does
> >
> > opcode_t in_section(.opcodes) start;
> > <lots of opcode_t>;
> > opcode_t in_section(.opcodes) end;
> >
> > And then scans from &start to &end.
> >
> > The only way, that i know of, to make that work is to indeed put
> > things into a table (an array).
>
> Yes, that's what I meant.
>
> The alternative is to move the opcodes to a new file, which is
> included two times by translate.c, first to get the opcode function
> definitions and second time to construct the table. This is what I
> meant with the #include trick below.
That should work yeah.
> > > the end of file and making the handler functions use normal C
> > > declarations or aided with a macro. That separates the function and
> > > its table entry a lot, but I guess we don't want to use the #include
> > > trick this time?
> >
> >
> > I think PPC's translate.c should be just split and massaged a lot.
>
> Fully agree.
>
>
--
mailto:address@hidden