Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:45:30 +0000 | From | Qais Yousef <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] MIPS: Add full ISA emulator. |
| |
By all means I don't really understand the whole issues surrounding this but this approach looks better to me as well. It seems more generic and future proof and at least I can understand the patch series.
But did I say I don't understand all of this? Would be nice to hear from more people :)
Qais
On 12/04/2014 10:16 AM, Paul Burton wrote: > Nice work David, I like this approach. It's so much simpler than hacking > atop the current dsemul code. I also imagine this could be reused for > emulation of instructions removed in r6, when running pre-r6 userland > binaries on r6 systems. > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 06:21:36PM -0800, David Daney wrote: >> On 12/03/2014 05:56 PM, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: >>> I see only two technical issues here which differs: >>> >>> 1. You believe your GCC experts, I trust HW Architecture manual and >>> don't trust toolchain people too much ==> we see a different value in >>> fact that your approach has a subset of emulated ISAs (and it can't, of >>> course, emulate anything because some custom opcodes are reused). >> Yes, I agree that the emulation approach cannot handle some of the cases you >> mention (most would have to be the result of hand coded assembly >> specifically trying to break it). > I'm not sure I'd agree even with that - ASEs & vendor-specific > instructions could easily be added if necessary. > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:56:51PM -0800, Leonid Yehoshin wrote: >>> 2. My approach is ready to use and is used right now, you still have a >>> framework which passed an initial boot. > Subjective. > > Thanks, > Paul
| |