On 2/14/25 18:16, Keith Packard via wrote:
> The documentation says the vector is at 0xffffff80, instead of the
> previous value of 0xffffffc0. That value must have been a bug because
> the standard vector values (20, 21, 23, 25, 30) were all
> past the end of the array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
> ---
> target/rx/helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/rx/helper.c b/target/rx/helper.c
> index 80912e8dcb..55e2ae4a11 100644
> --- a/target/rx/helper.c
> +++ b/target/rx/helper.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ void rx_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
> cpu_stl_data(env, env->isp, env->pc);
>
> if (vec < 0x100) {
> - env->pc = cpu_ldl_data(env, 0xffffffc0 + vec * 4);
> + env->pc = cpu_ldl_data(env, 0xffffff80 + vec * 4);
> } else {
> env->pc = cpu_ldl_data(env, env->intb + (vec & 0xff) * 4);
> }
This does appear to match the unnamed constants used as operands to raise_exception,
comparing to the vector addresses in the manual: (0xffffffd0, etc).
It would be nice to have them named, e.g. per the named list in rx_cpu_do_interrupt. The
0x100 constant would probably be better numbered 32, so that
vec < 0x100
checks themselves don't imply wraparound from 0xffffff80.
r~