Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/8] target/ppc: simplify get_cpu_vsrh() and get_cpu_vsrl() functions

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 05/03/2019 18:16, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:

> On 03/03/2019 23:35, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On 3/3/19 9:23 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>  static inline void get_cpu_vsrh(TCGv_i64 dst, int n)
>>>  {
>>> -    if (n < 32) {
>>> -        get_fpr(dst, n);
>>> -    } else {
>>> -        get_avr64(dst, n - 32, true);
>>> -    }
>>> +    tcg_gen_ld_i64(dst, cpu_env, vsrh_offset(n));
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static inline void get_cpu_vsrl(TCGv_i64 dst, int n)
>>>  {
>>> -    if (n < 32) {
>>> -        get_vsrl(dst, n);
>>> -    } else {
>>> -        get_avr64(dst, n - 32, false);
>>> -    }
>>> +    tcg_gen_ld_i64(dst, cpu_env, vsrl_offset(n));
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static inline void set_cpu_vsrh(int n, TCGv_i64 src)
>>>  {
>>> -    if (n < 32) {
>>> -        set_fpr(n, src);
>>> -    } else {
>>> -        set_avr64(n - 32, src, true);
>>> -    }
>>> +    tcg_gen_st_i64(src, cpu_env, vsrh_offset(n));
>>>  }
>>
>> I think these ought to have a "high" parameter, like set/get_avr64.
> 
> Right, this is effectively the same discussion as in my previous email so I 
> suggest
> we follow this up there.

I've reworked this patchset over the evening to keep avr64_offset() and looking 
over
the result it's more readable than I thought, mostly thanks to its use of the 
VsrD macro.

The only part I'm now not sure about is whether from the above you want to keep
fpr_offset() and vsrh_offset(), or whether in the final patch in the series I 
can
introduce vsr64_offset() similar to avr64_offset() and switch the callers over 
to use it?


ATB,

Mark.