From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2921 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2014 16:13:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 2905 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2014 16:12:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f173.google.com) (209.85.220.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:12:58 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id il7so4435758vcb.18 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.48.194 with SMTP id s2mr23280vcf.43.1395936775398; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.78.194 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140327154033.GI3075@redacted.bos.redhat.com> References: <20140327015125.GE3075@redacted.bos.redhat.com> <20140327154033.GI3075@redacted.bos.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] aarch64: detect atomic sequences like other ll/sc architectures From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Kyle McMartin Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00634.txt.bz2 On 27 March 2014 15:40, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:07:35PM +0000, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: >> Are you sure these masks and patterns are accurate? Looks to me that >> this excludes many of the load exclusive instructions and includes >> part of the unallocated encoding space. There are several different >> encodings to match here covering ld[a]xr{b,h,} and ld[a]xp. The masks >> and patterns will be something like: >> >> 0xbfff7c00 0x085f7c00 >> 0xbfff7c00 0x885f7c00 >> 0xbfff0000 0x887f0000 >> >> > + if (decode_masked_match (insn, 0x3fc00000, 0x08000000)) >> >> This also looks wrong. >> > > Eh... I tested all 24 possible ldxr/stxr opcodes... Kyle You are right, sorry, I can't read the encoding tables. This mask and pattern is indeed sensible. Cheers /Marcus