[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v25 14/20] i386: separate fpu_helper into user and sysemu par
From: |
Claudio Fontana |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v25 14/20] i386: separate fpu_helper into user and sysemu parts |
Date: |
Mon, 1 Mar 2021 09:41:29 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 |
On 2/26/21 7:42 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2/26/21 9:51 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> +/* fpu_helper.c */
>> +
>> +void do_fsave(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong ptr, int data32, uintptr_t ra);
>> +void do_frstor(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong ptr, int data32, uintptr_t
>> ra);
>> +void do_fxsave(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong ptr, uintptr_t ra);
>> +void do_fxrstor(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong ptr, uintptr_t ra);
>
> Is this really worth it?
No, probably not. Will respin without these parts,
and leaving the small ifdefs in the global tcg/fpu_helper.c
Thanks,
Claudio
> It means that we unnecessarily expose these functions
> in system mode, where they are still not safe.
>
> I had thought about doing something like
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> #define SYSEMU_STATIC
> #else
> #define SYSEMU_STATIC static
> #endif
>
> SYSEMU_STATIC void
> cpu_x86_fsave(...)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> void helper_fsave(...)
> {
> cpu_x86_fsave(..., GETPC());
> }
>
> but I thought the existing example of "do_" functions within that file to be
> compelling. I think small sections of this CONFIG within a file should be
> fine, especially where it interacts with other functions like this.
>
> I guess either way,
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>
>
> r~
>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [PATCH v25 14/20] i386: separate fpu_helper into user and sysemu parts,
Claudio Fontana <=