On 30 September 2016 at 03:49, Edgar E. Iglesias
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:42:27PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 30.09.2016 12:19, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
>> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > Fix the decoding of iss_sf in disas_ld_lit.
>> > The SF (Sixty-Four) field in the ISS (Instruction Specific Syndrome)
>> > is a bit that specifies the width of the register that the
>> > instruction loads to.
>> >
>> > If cleared it specifies 32 bits.
>> > If set it specifies 64 bits.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
>> > ---
>> > target-arm/translate-a64.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/target-arm/translate-a64.c b/target-arm/translate-a64.c
>> > index ddf52f5..eae25c3 100644
>> > --- a/target-arm/translate-a64.c
>> > +++ b/target-arm/translate-a64.c
>> > @@ -2025,7 +2025,7 @@ static void disas_ld_lit(DisasContext *s, uint32_t insn)
>> > do_fp_ld(s, rt, tcg_addr, size);
>> > } else {
>> > /* Only unsigned 32bit loads target 32bit registers. */
>> > - bool iss_sf = opc == 0 ? 32 : 64;
>> > + bool iss_sf = opc == 0 ? false : true;
>>
>> You could simplify that to:
>>
>> bool iss_sf = !(opc == 0);
>
> I don't really see how that is simpler/clearer.
>
> I considered:
> bool iss_sf = opc != 0;
>
> but felt the expanded one was clearer in particular as a patch for review.
I would probably personally have written it without the ?:, but
I don't think it's significant enough to bother respinning.
thanks
-- PMM