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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
