From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56389)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZZBIV-00040a-Or
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:18:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZZBIS-00066F-Ke
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:18:23 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]:35836)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1ZZBIS-000669-GF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:18:20 -0400
Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so116360569pac.2
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 22:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
References: <1441216660-8717-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<1441216660-8717-6-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<CAFEAcA_JxkqqD3E25a3a5YqKinxJHb22Q4JC9oA51swdU-txJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Message-ID: <55EE6F99.9040309@twiddle.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:18:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_JxkqqD3E25a3a5YqKinxJHb22Q4JC9oA51swdU-txJw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/11] target-arm: Implement ccmp
	branchless
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 09/07/2015 10:31 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> -    if (cond < 0x0e) { /* continue */
>> -        gen_set_label(label_continue);
>> +    /* If COND was false, force the flags to #nzcv.
>> +       Note that T1 = (COND ? 0 : -1), T2 = (COND ? -1 : 0).  */
>> +    tcg_t1 = tcg_temp_new_i32();
>> +    tcg_t2 = tcg_temp_new_i32();
>> +    tcg_gen_neg_i32(tcg_t1, tcg_t0);
>> +    tcg_gen_subi_i32(tcg_t2, tcg_t0, 1);
>
> t2 is ~t1, right? Do we get better/worse code if we use
> tcg_gen_andc_i32(..., tcg_t1) rather than creating t2 and
> using gen_and_i32 ?
>
>> +
>> +    if (nzcv & 8) { /* N */
>> +        tcg_gen_or_i32(cpu_NF, cpu_NF, tcg_t1);
>> +    } else {
>> +        tcg_gen_and_i32(cpu_NF, cpu_NF, tcg_t2);
>> +    }
>> +    if (nzcv & 4) { /* Z */
>> +        tcg_gen_and_i32(cpu_ZF, cpu_ZF, tcg_t2);
>> +    } else {
>> +        tcg_gen_or_i32(cpu_ZF, cpu_ZF, tcg_t0);
>> +    }
>> +    if (nzcv & 2) { /* C */
>> +        tcg_gen_or_i32(cpu_CF, cpu_CF, tcg_t0);
>> +    } else {
>> +        tcg_gen_and_i32(cpu_CF, cpu_CF, tcg_t2);
>> +    }
>> +    if (nzcv & 1) { /* V */
>> +        tcg_gen_or_i32(cpu_VF, cpu_VF, tcg_t1);
>> +    } else {
>> +        tcg_gen_and_i32(cpu_VF, cpu_VF, tcg_t2);

If the host supports andc, it's probably better to use only the one temp.  But 
otherwise we may save 4 not insns.  Is it worth complicating the code for that?


r~