On 27 June 2013 18:58, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>> Does the API look right? The other approach I thought of would
>> be to have functions sextract32()/sextract64() which work like
>> the existing extract{32,64} but return signed (and sign
>> extended) values, but providing
Peter Maydell writes:
> A common operation in instruction decoding is to take a field
> from an instruction that represents a signed integer in some
> arbitrary number of bits, and sign extend it into a C signed
> integer type for manipulation. Provide new functions sext32()
> and sext64() to abs
On 06/27/2013 08:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> A common operation in instruction decoding is to take a field
> from an instruction that represents a signed integer in some
> arbitrary number of bits, and sign extend it into a C signed
> integer type for manipulation. Provide new functions sext32()
A common operation in instruction decoding is to take a field
from an instruction that represents a signed integer in some
arbitrary number of bits, and sign extend it into a C signed
integer type for manipulation. Provide new functions sext32()
and sext64() to abstract away the bit manipulation.
