From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55669) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRh8B-0007pB-OW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:31:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRh86-0008Gb-Vr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:31:43 -0400 Received: from static.88-198-71-155.clients.your-server.de ([88.198.71.155]:34693 helo=socrates.bennee.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRh86-0008GT-Q8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:31:38 -0400 References: <524D3FAF.7020701@linaro.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <524D3FAF.7020701@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:31:37 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Implement ARMv8 VSEL instruction. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Will Newton Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, patches@linaro.org will.newton@linaro.org writes: > @@ -6756,6 +6864,13 @@ static void disas_arm_insn(CPUARMState * env, DisasContext *s) > goto illegal_op; > return; > } > + if ((insn & 0x0f800e50) == 0x0e000a00) { > + /* ARMv8 VFP. */ > + ARCH(8); > + > + if (disas_v8vfp_insn(env, s, insn)) > + goto illegal_op; > + } > if (((insn & 0x0f30f000) == 0x0510f000) || > ((insn & 0x0f30f010) == 0x0710f000)) { > if ((insn & (1 << 22)) == 0) { > @@ -8768,6 +8883,12 @@ static int disas_thumb2_insn(CPUARMState *env, DisasContext *s, uint16_t insn_hw > insn = (insn & 0xe2ffffff) | ((insn & (1 << 28)) >> 4) | (1 << 28); > if (disas_neon_data_insn(env, s, insn)) > goto illegal_op; > + } else if ((insn & 0x0f800e50) == 0x0e000a00) { > + /* ARMv8 VFP. */ > + ARCH(8); > + > + if (disas_v8vfp_insn(env, s, insn)) > + goto illegal_op; > } else { > if (insn & (1 << 28)) > goto illegal_op; I wonder is there a better way to deal with these masks for checking instruction type? I only mention it because the same constant is used twice and should it ever be changed there is a risk of one being missed (although conceivably thumb encoding could be different?). I appreciate the disassembler code is already a mass of magic constants so it's not a major thing for me. Cheers, -- Alex Bennée