Hi Richard,
On 2021/11/17 下午5:55, Richard Henderson wrote:
@fmt_rr_i12 and @fmt_rr_ui12 are two 'Formats', but they use the
same 'Argument sets'(rr_i).
What I meant is that there would be a single gen_rr_i function handing
the argument set rr_i; no need for two gen_rr_i* functions.
Got
On 11/17/21 10:29 AM, gaosong wrote:
gen_rr_i ?
The code is not written completely, like this:
gen_rr_i12:
@fmt_rr_i12 .. imm:s12 rj:5 rd:5 _i
slti 001000 . . @fmt_rr_i12
sltui 001001 . .
Hi Richard,
On 2021/11/17 下午4:28, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/17/21 8:57 AM, gaosong wrote:
I see that insns.decode format is not very consistent with other
architectures, such ARM/RISCV
No. I don't like how riscv has done it, though they have quite a few
split fields, so perhaps they
On 11/17/21 8:57 AM, gaosong wrote:
I see that insns.decode format is not very consistent with other architectures, such
ARM/RISCV
No. I don't like how riscv has done it, though they have quite a few split fields, so
perhaps they thought it looked weird.
#
# Argument sets
#
_i
Hi Richard,
On 2021/11/15 下午4:42, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/15/21 4:59 AM, gaosong wrote:
'The width of the immediate is a detail of the format' means:
_rdrjimm rd rj imm
@fmt_rdrjimm .. imm:12 rj:5 rd:5 _rdrjimm
@fmt_rdrjimm14 imm:14 rj:5
On 11/15/21 4:59 AM, gaosong wrote:
'The width of the immediate is a detail of the format' means:
_rdrjimm rd rj imm
@fmt_rdrjimm .. imm:12 rj:5 rd:5 _rdrjimm
@fmt_rdrjimm14 imm:14 rj:5 rd:5 _rdrjimm
@fmt_rdrjimm16 .. imm:16
Hi Richard,
On 2021/11/12 下午10:05, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/12/21 7:53 AM, Song Gao wrote:
+#
+# Fields
+#
+%rd 0:5
+%rj 5:5
+%rk 10:5
+%sa2 15:2
+%si12 10:s12
+%ui12 10:12
+%si16 10:s16
+%si20 5:s20
You should only create separate field definitions like
On 11/12/21 22:05, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/12/21 7:53 AM, Song Gao wrote:
+#
+# Fields
+#
+%rd 0:5
+%rj 5:5
+%rk 10:5
+%sa2 15:2
+%si12 10:s12
+%ui12 10:12
+%si16 10:s16
+%si20 5:s20
You should only create separate field definitions like this when they
On 11/12/21 7:53 AM, Song Gao wrote:
+#
+# Fields
+#
+%rd 0:5
+%rj 5:5
+%rk 10:5
+%sa2 15:2
+%si1210:s12
+%ui1210:12
+%si1610:s16
+%si205:s20
You should only create separate field definitions like this when they are complex: e.g.
the logical field is
This includes:
- ADD.{W/D}, SUB.{W/D}
- ADDI.{W/D}, ADDU16ID
- ALSL.{W[U]/D}
- LU12I.W, LU32I.D LU52I.D
- SLT[U], SLT[U]I
- PCADDI, PCADDU12I, PCADDU18I, PCALAU12I
- AND, OR, NOR, XOR, ANDN, ORN
- MUL.{W/D}, MULH.{W[U]/D[U]}
- MULW.D.W[U]
- DIV.{W[U]/D[U]}, MOD.{W[U]/D[U]}
- ANDI, ORI, XORI
10 matches
Mail list logo
