|
Message
From: Matjaz Breskvar<phoenix@o...>
Date: Mon Mar 28 01:49:08 CEST 2005
Subject: [openrisc] or1ksim patches #34-#67
Hi,Below are my comments of the or1ksim patches. I'm sure i oversaw a few
things, so any corrections are more then welcome...
I'm also experiencing some differences in behaviour beetwen current cvs
tree (which also doesn't compile) and the stable branch. i'll investigate
as soon as these patches are commited to cvs.
#34 missing.
#35 accepted.
#36 accepted, argee on comment about not needing floats.
#37 resend patch. (there is incorrect patch applied to email #37)
#38 accepted.
#39 accepted.
#40 accepted.
#41 accepted.
#42 accepted.
#43 missing.
#44 accepted.
#45 accepted, please make a comment somewhere appropriate that one shouldn't
assume except_handle returns. i might have additional comments later on.
#46 accepted.
#47 accepted, with the same comment as #45
#48 accepted.
#49 accepted.
#50 accepted. (why is "enabled = 1" line removed. how can one easily disable
some device ?)
#51 missing.
#52 missing.
#53 accepted. why not print the whole SPR_SR then ?
#54 accepted.
#55 accepted.
#56 accepted.
#57 accepted.
#58 accepted.
#59 accepted. We probably need a separation to the 'architectural access
(the one that real hw would do)' and the 'simulator internal accesses'. but
let it be like this for now. I agree with "I would go asfar as to argue that
mfspr() and mtspr() should only be called from
the l.mfspr and l.mtspr instructions."
#60 accepted.
#61 accepted.
#62 accepted.
#63 accepted.
#64 missing.
#65 accepted.
#66 accepted.
#67 accepted.
best regards,
p.
|
 |
Browse
