[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v11 04/26] target/loongarch: Add fixed point arithmetic instr

From: gaosong
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 04/26] target/loongarch: Add fixed point arithmetic instruction translation
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:52:32 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux loongarch64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

Hi Richard,
On 2021/11/20 下午3:17, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/19/21 7:13 AM, Song Gao wrote:
+static bool gen_rrr(DisasContext *ctx, arg_rrr *a,
+                    DisasExtend src1_ext, DisasExtend src2_ext,
+                    DisasExtend dst_ext, void (*func)(TCGv, TCGv, TCGv))
+    TCGv dest = gpr_dst(ctx, a->rd, dst_ext);
+    TCGv src1 = gpr_src(ctx, a->rj, src1_ext);
+    TCGv src2 = gpr_src(ctx, a->rk, src2_ext);
+    func(dest, src1, src2);
+    /* dst_ext is EXT_NONE and input is dest, We don't run gen_set_gpr. */
+    if (dst_ext) {
+        gen_set_gpr(a->rd, dest, dst_ext);
+    }

Why the (incomplete) condition around gen_set_gpr?

I think it's a bug to not name EXT_NONE in the test (just because EXT_NONE == 0 now...), but I also think you should not have added the test at all.  We will not generate any code in the end within gen_set_gpr, but it allows the routines to be self-contained.  You shouldn't assume what gpr_dst returned.

You're right, gen_set_gpr not need EXT_NONE at all, and we need not condition around gen_set_gpr. 
I think that if we know the dst_ext is EXT_NONE, we do't need gen_set_gpr.  I'll correct them on v12. 

Song Gao


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]