On 6/14/19 10:52 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:21, Richard Henderson
> <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/14/19 3:44 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ static bool trans_VSEL(DisasContext *s, arg_VSEL *a)
>>> ((a->vm | a->vn | a->vd) & 0x10)) {
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if (dp && !dc_isar_feature(aa32_fpdp, s)) {
>>> + return false;
>>> + }
>>
>> Would it be cleaner to define something like
>>
>> static bool vfp_dp_enabled(DisasContext *s, int regmask)
>> {
>> if (!dc_isar_feature(aa32_fpdp, s)) {
>> /* All double-precision disabled. */
>> return false;
>> }
>> if (!dc_isar_feature(aa32_fp_d32, s) && (regmask & 0x10)) {
>> /* D16-D31 do not exist. */
>> return false;
>> }
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> Then use
>>
>> if (dp && !vfp_dp_enabled(s, a->vm | a->vn | a->vd))
>>
>> ?
>
> It would be less code, but I don't think the "are we using
> a register than doesn't exist" and the "do we have dp support"
> checks are really related, and splitting the "OR the register
> numbers together" from the "test the top bit" makes that
> part look rather less clear I think.
Fair enough.
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
r~
