This series add the files needed to test the m68k target.

For the moment, it doesn't support FPU instructions.

Laurent Vivier (5):
  m68k: implement risugen module
  m68k: implement server and client side
  m68k: add risufile with m68k instructions.
  m68k: add instruction needing an extended word
  m68k: manage memory block

 configure           |   6 +-
 m68k.risu           | 369 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 risu.h              |   1 +
 risu_m68k.c         | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++
 risu_reginfo_m68k.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++
 risu_reginfo_m68k.h |  32 +++++
 risugen             |   2 +-
 risugen_m68k.pm     | 390 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 test_m68k.s         |  28 ++++
 9 files changed, 1134 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 m68k.risu
 create mode 100644 risu_m68k.c
 create mode 100644 risu_reginfo_m68k.c
 create mode 100644 risu_reginfo_m68k.h
 create mode 100644 risugen_m68k.pm
 create mode 100644 test_m68k.s

-- 
2.9.3

On 7 February 2017 at 18:33, Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
> This series add the files needed to test the m68k target.
>
> For the moment, it doesn't support FPU instructions.
>
> Laurent Vivier (5):
>   m68k: implement risugen module
>   m68k: implement server and client side
>   m68k: add risufile with m68k instructions.
>   m68k: add instruction needing an extended word
>   m68k: manage memory block

Thanks for this; I think patches 1-3 are good, and have
applied them to risu master. For 4 I wonder if we can
find a better way of handling variable-length instruction
sets than !post, and I haven't yet looked at 5.

thanks
-- PMM

Le 10/02/2017 à 16:25, Peter Maydell a écrit :
> On 7 February 2017 at 18:33, Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
>> This series add the files needed to test the m68k target.
>>
>> For the moment, it doesn't support FPU instructions.
>>
>> Laurent Vivier (5):
>>   m68k: implement risugen module
>>   m68k: implement server and client side
>>   m68k: add risufile with m68k instructions.
>>   m68k: add instruction needing an extended word
>>   m68k: manage memory block
> 
> Thanks for this; I think patches 1-3 are good, and have
> applied them to risu master. For 4 I wonder if we can
> find a better way of handling variable-length instruction
> sets than !post, and I haven't yet looked at 5.

I think it should be possible but I don't know perl well enough to
propose a better solution.

Thanks,
Laurent

On 10 February 2017 at 15:33, Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
> Le 10/02/2017 à 16:25, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>> Thanks for this; I think patches 1-3 are good, and have
>> applied them to risu master. For 4 I wonder if we can
>> find a better way of handling variable-length instruction
>> sets than !post, and I haven't yet looked at 5.
>
> I think it should be possible but I don't know perl well enough to
> propose a better solution.

Yeah; I'll have a think about it.

I got bored with the repetition between all the CPU backends,
by the way, so I've created a risugen_common.pm and moved
a bunch of the identical utility functions too it. (We can
probably share more, but this seemed like a good start.)

thanks
-- PMM

On 10 February 2017 at 17:32, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 10 February 2017 at 15:33, Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
>> Le 10/02/2017 à 16:25, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>>> Thanks for this; I think patches 1-3 are good, and have
>>> applied them to risu master. For 4 I wonder if we can
>>> find a better way of handling variable-length instruction
>>> sets than !post, and I haven't yet looked at 5.
>>
>> I think it should be possible but I don't know perl well enough to
>> propose a better solution.
>
> Yeah; I'll have a think about it.
>
> I got bored with the repetition between all the CPU backends,
> by the way, so I've created a risugen_common.pm and moved
> a bunch of the identical utility functions too it. (We can
> probably share more, but this seemed like a good start.)

PS: I've been just writing and pushing code because this is
just a test program and it doesn't seem like it merits the
overhead of getting my own patches codereviewed here; but
if people would prefer to see the changes I make here first
let me know.

thanks
-- PMM