On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:30 PM Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > On 17/09/2022 23:27, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé via wrote: > > On 17/9/22 14:09, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > >>> There are already 32 feature bits in use, so change the size of the m68k > >>> CPU features to uint64_t (allong with the associated m68k_feature() > >>> functions) to allow up to 64 feature bits to be used. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> > >>> --- > >>> target/m68k/cpu.c | 4 ++-- > >>> target/m68k/cpu.h | 6 +++--- > >>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/target/m68k/cpu.c b/target/m68k/cpu.c > >>> index f681be3a2a..7b4797e2f1 100644 > >>> --- a/target/m68k/cpu.c > >>> +++ b/target/m68k/cpu.c > >>> @@ -38,12 +38,12 @@ static bool m68k_cpu_has_work(CPUState *cs) > >>> > >>> static void m68k_set_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature) > >>> { > >>> - env->features |= (1u << feature); > >>> + env->features |= (1ul << feature); > > > > env->features = deposit64(env->features, feature, 1, 1); > > > >>> } > >>> > >>> static void m68k_unset_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature) > >>> { > >>> - env->features &= (-1u - (1u << feature)); > >>> + env->features &= (-1ul - (1ul << feature)); > > > > env->features = deposit64(env->features, feature, 1, 0); > > > >> Should these be ull instead of ul? > > > > Yes. Not needed if using the <qemu/bitops.h> extract/deposit API. > > I must admit I find the deposit64() variants not particularly easy to read: > if we're > considering alterations rather than changing the constant suffix then I'd > much rather > go for: > > env->features |= (1ULL << feature); > > and: > > env->features &= ~(1ULL << feature); > > Laurent, what would be your preference?
OK, no need to change then. > >>> -static inline int m68k_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature) > >>> +static inline uint64_t m68k_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature) > > > > Why uint64_t? Can we simplify using a boolean? > > I don't really feel strongly either way here. Again I'm happy to go with > whatever > Laurent would prefer as maintainer. Preferably using boolean: Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>