On 02/22/2018 06:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Incidentally, I notice that the condition checks > (TCG_TARGET_HAS_v256 && check_size_impl(oprsz, 32) > && tcg_can_emit_vec_op(g->opc, TCG_TYPE_V256, g->vece)) > > (TCG_TARGET_HAS_v128 && check_size_impl(oprsz, 16) > && tcg_can_emit_vec_op(g->opc, TCG_TYPE_V128, g->vece)) > > (TCG_TARGET_HAS_v64 && check_size_impl(oprsz, 8) > && tcg_can_emit_vec_op(g->opc, TCG_TYPE_V64, g->vece)) > > seem to be quite commonly used -- perhaps factoring these out > into suitably named functions would make the code more readable?
That's a good idea. I'll see what I can come up with there. r~
