Re: [RFC PATCH 22/27] target/arm: Move hflags code into the tcg directory

[Richard Henderson]

On 1/4/23 13:58, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>   #include "qemu/config-file.h"
>   #include "qemu/option.h"
>   #include "qemu/units.h"
> +#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
>   
>   /* Kernel boot protocol is specified in the kernel docs
>    * Documentation/arm/Booting and Documentation/arm64/booting.txt
> @@ -827,7 +828,9 @@ static void do_cpu_reset(void *opaque)
>                   info->secondary_cpu_reset_hook(cpu, info);
>               }
>           }
> -        arm_rebuild_hflags(env);
> +        if (tcg_enabled()) {
> +            arm_rebuild_hflags(env);
> +        }

We certainly are adding lots of wrapping for this function.
Should we handle it just once in a header instead?

> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ int sme_exception_el(CPUARMState *env, int el)
>   }
>   
>   /* This corresponds to the ARM pseudocode function IsFullA64Enabled(). */
> -static bool sme_fa64(CPUARMState *env, int el)
> +bool sme_fa64(CPUARMState *env, int el)

This function should be moved as well, as it's only used by hflags.

> @@ -25,3 +26,12 @@ void arm_reset_sve_state(CPUARMState *env)
>   {
>       g_assert_not_reached();
>   }
> +
> +void arm_rebuild_hflags(CPUARMState *env)
> +{
> +    g_assert_not_reached();
> +}
> +
> +void assert_hflags_rebuild_correctly(CPUARMState *env)
> +{
> +}

Do we really need these?  I would expect the tcg_enabled() test to dead-code-eliminate the 
calls...



r~