On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29 January 2014 20:01, Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Peter Maydell >> <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Ping for review/testing/comments on this version, please? >> >> I still dislike the idea of importing so much code in particular for >> something that is incomplete: as far as I can see, AdvSIMD >> instructions are not supported. The very least that should be >> done would be to add a file that gives a rough status of what is >> and what is not implemented. > > I can add some text to a brief README file, sure. > >> And what if the vixl authors never implement AdvSIMD? This >> is the most difficult part of Aarch64 to disassemble (integer and >> FP instructions are really easy to disassemble). Will someone >> add these and will vixl authors accept the changes or will we >> then start diverging from vixl implementation? Is vixl even still >> supported or in development (no commit for 6 months)? > > As I understand the situation, it is supported but the model > is more "we'll push out a release occasionally when we've > done a big chunk of work" rather than a continuously updated > public-facing git tree. > > This is no worse at all (in fact better) than the situation we have > with the binutils disassemblers in the tree at the moment -- those > are effectively totally unmaintained by their upstream as > a result of the GPL2/GPL3 split. > > I agree that it would be nice if we supported the SIMD > instructions in the disassembler. Adding them to vixl > should be no worse than adding them to anything else, > and I'd rather have a disassembler that supported at > least the integer set than none at all. That looks OK to me. Thanks, Laurent _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
