From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51037)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Tg2js-0007XU-9h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:21:29 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Tg2jp-0002C9-SN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:21:24 -0500
Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:43560)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TfyPJ-0000nR-Ig
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:43:53 -0500
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b12so2322951qca.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50BE5273.7090505@twiddle.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:43:47 -0600
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1354632583-22403-1-git-send-email-petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com>
	<CAAu8pHuJzKVVKWBX5JcanxESvzhKjywHTc4p+qLh2Gw7yW=1=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHuJzKVVKWBX5JcanxESvzhKjywHTc4p+qLh2Gw7yW=1=A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-mips: Fix incorrect shift for SHILO
 and SHILOV
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: petarj@mips.com, Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com>, aurelien@aurel32.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 2012-12-04 13:00, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> > +    if (rs5_0 == 0)
>> > +        return;
> The check should be moved to translation time so that the call to this
> helper is not generated at all.

No, we'd do that only if this value were an immediate.
Branch over helper is not an optimization for an edge case runtime value.


r~