On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 08:58 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Better code is an argument only if the effect can be demonstrated.
>>>
>>> I don't know even for which compilers or CPUs this is true so it's
>>> unlikely I could demonstrate it. However
On 06/28/2012 08:58 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
>>> Better code is an argument only if the effect can be demonstrated.
>>
>> I don't know even for which compilers or CPUs this is true so it's
>> unlikely I could demonstrate it. However, googling finds a few
>> articles in defense of this.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Blue Swirl writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Blue Swirl writes:
>>>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tu
Blue Swirl writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Blue Swirl writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 26
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Blue Swirl writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl w
Blue Swirl writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell
> w
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> +static inline uint6
On 26 June 2012 19:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
+static inline uint64_t field64(uint64_t value, int start, int length)
>>>
>>> star
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> +static inline uint64_t field64(uint64_t value, int start, int length)
>>
>> start and length could be unsigned.
>
> They could be, bu
On 26 June 2012 18:58, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> +static inline uint64_t field64(uint64_t value, int start, int length)
>
> start and length could be unsigned.
They could be, but is there any reason why they should be?
set_bit(), clear_bit()
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Add field32() and field64() functions which extract a particular
> bit field from a word and return it. Based on an idea by Jia Liu.
>
> Suggested-by: Jia Liu
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell
> ---
> Jia Liu had a function like this in the Op
On 25 June 2012 21:26, malc wrote:
> The field32 and field64 are inconsistent w.r.t. grouping, while both are
> correct, one has to go through precedence list mentally in the latter
> case.
Yeah, unintentional and I agree that if you have to think about
operator precedence there weren't enough br
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Add field32() and field64() functions which extract a particular
> bit field from a word and return it. Based on an idea by Jia Liu.
>
> Suggested-by: Jia Liu
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell
> ---
[..snip..]
> +static inline uint64_t field64(uint64_t
Add field32() and field64() functions which extract a particular
bit field from a word and return it. Based on an idea by Jia Liu.
Suggested-by: Jia Liu
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell
---
Jia Liu had a function like this in the OpenRISC support patchset;
this implementation borrows the API but has
14 matches
Mail list logo
