[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0942db0806261243g52edd45eo11ded19bb1f24004@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:43:20 -0700
From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: monstr@...nam.cz
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com,
John.Linn@...inx.com, john.williams@...alogix.com, matthew@....cx,
will.newton@...il.com, drepper@...hat.com,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, vapier.adi@...il.com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
"Michal Simek" <monstr@...str.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/60] microblaze_v4: exception handling
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Michal Simek <monstr@...nam.cz> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:29 AM, <monstr@...nam.cz> wrote:
>>> +ex_sw:
>>> + /* Get the destination register number into r5 */
>>> + lbui r5, r0, ex_reg_op;
>>> + /* Form store_word jump table offset (sw_table + (8 * regnum)) */
>>> + la r6, r0, sw_table;
>>> + add r5, r5, r5;
>>> + add r5, r5, r5;
>>> + add r5, r5, r5;
>>> + add r5, r5, r6;
>>> + bra r5;
>>
>> Possibly stupid question: This is part of the unaligned store word
>> exception handler, yes? Shouldn't the above add's be addk's to
>> preserve the state of the carry register pre/post store?
>
> I don't think that addk is important. I have some tests for exception, I want to
> cover full exception handling.
Okay. It doesn't match your other exception handlers, though, which is
why I noticed it in the first place (they use addk).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists