On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell at linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 March 2012 03:15, Christoffer Dall <c.dall at virtualopensystems.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote: >>> But I suspect it wouldn't be so explicit in the manual if there wasn't >>> some silicon coming which actually needs this... > >> not sure what the process is here, maybe they just don't want to >> dictate that architecture, if that for some reason can clutter some >> hardware implementation logic magic. Who knows. > > As a general rule of thumb you can assume that impdef leeway in the > architecture manual is there for a reason, yes. > > If you have access to the AEM model it has a take_ccfail_undef flag > you can use to enable (some of) this behaviour. > > Since we've dropped all that asm now, I don't think the 'cc failed?' > checks are all that much code and I'd prefer to have them in rather > than out. This would be in line with existing code in the kernel for > eg swp emulation which is handling this case already. > I'm fine with that. I just want to clean up the double-negation part of the C-interface as well. -Christoffer
