qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] target/s390x: Add support for the TEST BLOCK


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] target/s390x: Add support for the TEST BLOCK instruction
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:00:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0

On 18.05.2017 14:59, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 18.05.2017 14:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> index f6e5bce..de0ecd4 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>  
>>>  #include "qemu/osdep.h"
>>>  #include "cpu.h"
>>> +#include "exec/address-spaces.h"
>>>  #include "exec/helper-proto.h"
>>>  #include "exec/exec-all.h"
>>>  #include "exec/cpu_ldst.h"
>>> @@ -973,6 +974,33 @@ void HELPER(stctl)(CPUS390XState *env, uint32_t r1, 
>>> uint64_t a2, uint32_t r3)
>>>      }
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +uint32_t HELPER(testblock)(CPUS390XState *env, uint64_t real_addr)
>>> +{
>>> +    CPUState *cs = CPU(s390_env_get_cpu(env));
>>> +    uint64_t abs_addr;
>>> +    int i;
>>> +
>>
>> It is somewhat strange that we set a condition code in case of a program
>> interrupt (I assume that's the magic of the return value?). But maybe
>> setting the CC on program interrupts is perfectly valid.
> 
> According to the PoP:
> 
> "[...] The operation is ter-
> minated on addressing and protection exceptions. If
> termination occurs, the condition code and the con-
> tents of bit positions 32-63 of general register 0 are
> unpredictable in the 24-bit or 31-bit addressing
> mode, or the condition code and bits 0-63 of the reg-
> ister are unpredictable in the 64-bit addressing mode."
> 
> So setting CC=1 seems a valid behavior here ;-)

So

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>


-- 

Thanks,

David



reply via email to

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