>>> On 16.08.16 at 16:08, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 16/08/16 10:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Just like said in commit c0bc0adf24 ("x86emul: use DstEax where >> possible"): While it avoids just a few instructions, we should >> nevertheless make use of generic code as much as possible. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > This does reduce the amount of code, but it isn't strictly true. The > mul and div instructions are DstEaxEdx, as are a number of other > instructions. > > We shouldn't end up with special casing the eax part because we have an > easy literal for it, but leaving the edx hard coded because that is > easier to express in the current code.
I think the code reduction is nevertheless worth it, and reduction here can only help readability imo. Would you be okay if I added a comment to the place where the DstEax gets set here? (Note that DstEdxEax wouldn't be true for 8-bit operations, so I'd rather not use this as another alias or even a completely new operand kind description. And please also remember that the tables don't express all operands in all cases anyway - just consider SHLD/SHRD.) Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel