On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > If it happens, I should get a SIGILL, right? Right. Hmm... If you can't reproduce this anymore I guess we should pull this patch again? Despite Mike basically acknowledging that such behaviour exists I don't feel to well about applying patches for non-reproducable processor behaviour and would rather prefer to wait until we believe to know the full details. ? > > + set_fs(seg); > > `seg' is never initialized? Yep ... > > + case bcond_op: > > + case j_op: > > + case jal_op: > > + case beq_op: > > + case bne_op: > > + case blez_op: > > + case bgtz_op: > > + case beql_op: > > + case bnel_op: > > + case blezl_op: > > + case bgtzl_op: > > + case jalx_op: > > + return 1; > > I think you can remove the unconditional jumps, cfr. Mike's comments. That's one of the points where I felt a bit unsafe about the extend of the issue so I left the jumps in. Anyway, why should it make a difference if an instruction is conditional or not? > Isn't the Vr4120A core MIPS32? Vr4120 is MIPS III. Ralf
