qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] target-arm : use aarch64 mode testing wrapp


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] target-arm : use aarch64 mode testing wrapper
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 19:30:09 +0100

On 4 September 2014 19:01, Chih-Min Chao <address@hidden> wrote:
>     Don't use internal member but availabel wrapper function to
>     test status
>
> Signed-off-by: Chih-Min Chao <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/arm/boot.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c
> index e32f2f4..26bc25f 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/boot.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c
> @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ static void do_cpu_reset(void *opaque)
>      if (info) {
>          if (!info->is_linux) {
>              /* Jump to the entry point.  */
> -            if (env->aarch64) {
> +            if (is_a64(env)) {
>                  env->pc = info->entry;
>              } else {
>                  env->regs[15] = info->entry & 0xfffffffe;
> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static void do_cpu_reset(void *opaque)
>              }
>          } else {
>              if (CPU(cpu) == first_cpu) {
> -                if (env->aarch64) {
> +                if (is_a64(env)) {
>                      env->pc = info->loader_start;
>                  } else {
>                      env->regs[15] = info->loader_start;
> --
> 2.0.4

Maybe we should make the ARM set_pc CPU object methods
honour the thumb bit in the PC value; then we could just
call the set_pc method rather than having an if() at all.
That would change the behaviour of the gdb step and
continue protocol commands though, so I need to check
what their behaviour is expected to be...

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]