On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> If it happens, I should get a SIGILL, 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?
> > + 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.