From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28707 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2009 18:06:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 28697 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2009 18:06:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.159) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:43 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1291666fga.8 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.230.27 with SMTP id c27mr2285153fgh.63.1256666800756; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm541231fge.29.2009.10.27.11.06.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AE73A3C.4050501@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Dave Korn , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , cgen Subject: Re: cgen->sim question References: <4AE59913.5040402@gmail.com> <4AE5CA87.5030500@sebabeach.org> In-Reply-To: <4AE5CA87.5030500@sebabeach.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q4/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: >> I've seen this too. I made it go away by changing the hardware >> element type >> in the define-normal-operand from h-addr to h-uint (or h-sint in some >> cases). >> I don't know for a fact if it was the right thing to do, but all the >> generated code ended up looking sane; it does leave me a little unsure, >> however, because now I don't know what h-addr is actually supposed to >> be used >> for - my port ends up not using it at all anywhere, and everything >> appears to >> work. >> > > Huh. I tried it and it worked ok. In my case it's probably related to the unusual machine word size. cheers, DaveK