[J-core] qemu updates / roadmap
Christopher Friedt
chrisfriedt at gmail.com
Sun May 15 22:43:47 EDT 2016
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Christopher Friedt
<chrisfriedt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Christopher Friedt
> <chrisfriedt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 0x3290 <_pfail> .word 0x0000
>> 0x3292 <_pfail+2> sub r2,r6
>> 0x3294 <_testgo> mov #-117,r0
>> 0x3296 <_testgo+2> mov.l 0x3610 <_pram0>,r1 ! 0x6594 <_ram0+128>
>> 0x3298 <_testgo+4> mov.l r0, at r1
>> 0x329a <_testgo+6> nop
>> 0x329c <_testgo+8> bra 0x32a0 <_bracont>
>> 0x329e <_testgo+10> mov.l @r1,r2
>> 0x32a0 <_bracont> mov #-4,r1
>> 0x32a2 <_bracont+2> and r1,r2
>> 0x32a4 <_bracont+4> mov r2,r0
>> 0x32a6 <_bracont+6> cmp/eq #-120,r0
>> 0x32a8 <_bracont+8> bt 0x32ae <_bracont+14>
>> 0x32aa <_bracont+10> jmp @r13
>> 0x32ac <_bracont+12> nop
I think this makes a bit more sense now - _bracont is a corner case.
Normally, bra should be followed by a nop. If it isn't then "strange
and wonderful" things happen. Presumably, all of the contention
behaviour documented (and undocumented) have been built into the jcore
design.
I think what I've observed here in Qemu, are some of those contentious
behaviours not being correctly addressed!
More information about the J-core
mailing list