From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 32214 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2021 19:28:51 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 Dec 2021 19:28:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 13803 invoked by uid 550); 7 Dec 2021 19:28:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 13783 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2021 19:28:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1638905316; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=y+KM8+NgCzHIfXl3sBa91r0eZ9p4psh4+FC6M5cCLuQ=; b=gu3XfAbKSD83qfFLu8HKVeku11yONq8WDM16b8IVWXHFVpxHEXVieifSY82sy3ce51j4QZ +wizypmfGj6+wZnZT6T6UmFLu20hhwGynIAhnEue2SHoYmIQOdJJF1OEopEwmqoye7CDtO 55Uzvy8TVDFe6oJOVKEMV8K76nZ8rlQ= X-MC-Unique: E0c1AlX0OpynpnMyP_PEAA-1 From: Florian Weimer To: Markus Wichmann Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com References: <20211206234358.2174444-1-stijn@linux-ipv6.be> <87tufljlmv.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20211207005940.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20211207013930.GM7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20211207132509.GO7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20211207183933.GA8506@voyager> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 20:28:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20211207183933.GA8506@voyager> (Markus Wichmann's message of "Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:39:33 +0100") Message-ID: <87o85snrj7.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] ppc64: check for AltiVec in setjmp/longjmp * Markus Wichmann: > That said, architecturally it will work either way. We are only talking > about an implementation detail, and both IBM's and Freescale's/NXP's > documentation is very cagey about revealing any of those. We do have source code for one implementation. | -- bcl 20,31,$+4 is special case. not a subroutine call, used to get nex= t instruction address, should not be placed on link stack. | iu4_bo_d( 6 to 10) <=3D iu3_instr_pri( 6 to 10); | iu4_bi_d(11 to 15) <=3D iu3_instr_pri(11 to 15); |=20 | iu4_getNIA <=3D iu4_opcode_q(0 to 5) =3D "01= 0000" and | iu4_bo_q(6 to 10) =3D "1010= 0" and | iu4_bi_q(11 to 15) =3D "1111= 1" and | iu4_bd(EFF_IFAR'left to 61) =3D 1 = and | iu4_aa_q =3D '0' = and | iu4_lk_q =3D '1' = ; I suspect =E2=80=9Ciu4_bd(EFF_IFAR'left to 61) =3D 1=E2=80=9D matches 4 exa= ctly (the lowest four bits of the offset are not encoded in the instruction because they are always zero). But I don't know any VHDL. Thanks, Florian