On Sunday 04 August 2013 01:32 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

quoted

On Saturday 03 August 2013 10:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Sricharan R wrote:

quoted

On Saturday 03 August 2013 08:58 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

... meaning that, instead of using 0x81 for the stub value on the mov 
instruction, it only has to be 0x83.  Bits 7 and 0 still act as anchors 
for the rotation field in the opcode, while bit 1 indicates which value 
to patch in.

  I started with this kind of augmenting with the immediate operand
  while starting V2. But the problem was, we do the runtime patching twice.

Ahhh... Bummer.

Sorry if it wasn't clear but I thought we discussed why patching is
done twice.

Yeah, I know the reasons.  I just had forgotten about the effects on the 
anchor bits.

I see.
 

quoted

This was purely based on the discussion where RMK suggested to follow 
that approach to minimize code changes.
 
Looks like we need to revisit that now based on Russell's latest
comment.

Note that my comments on this particular patch are still valid and 
independent from whatever approach is used globally to deal with the 
memory alias.  I do think that the value to patch should be selected 
depending on the opcode's rotation field which makes it compatible with 
a double patching approach as well.

Completely agree.

Regards,
Santosh