On 10/10/2013 05:27 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
> Is your concern aesthetic? Memory consumption? And do you feel this is a
> showstopper or something that could be addressed later?
Aesthetic, and it definitely ought to be addressed outside this patch set.
r~
On 10/9/2013 3:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/04/2013 06:24 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
+tcg_gen_and_i64(b, b, c);
+tcg_gen_not_i64(c, c);
+tcg_gen_and_i64(a, a, c);
tcg_gen_andc_i64.
+#define GEN_XXSEL() \
+GEN_XXSEL_ROW(0x00) \
+GEN_XXSEL_ROW(0x01) \
Why bother with defining GE
On 10/04/2013 06:24 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
> +tcg_gen_and_i64(b, b, c);
> +tcg_gen_not_i64(c, c);
> +tcg_gen_and_i64(a, a, c);
tcg_gen_andc_i64.
> +#define GEN_XXSEL() \
> +GEN_XXSEL_ROW(0x00) \
> +GEN_XXSEL_ROW(0x01) \
Why bother with defining GEN_XXSEL when its only used once?
Surely
This patch adds the VSX Select (xxsel) instruction.
The xxsel instruction has four VSR operands. Thus the xC
instruction decoder is added.
The xxsel instruction is massively overloaded in the opcode
table since only bits 26 and 27 are opcode bits. This
overloading is done in matrix fashion wit
