From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gu0b2-0002XG-RK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:53:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gu0b0-0004Mb-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:53:28 -0500 References: <20190213143322.31371-1-david@redhat.com> <20190213143322.31371-13-david@redhat.com> <634cf76a-f1b9-138a-2ed4-e666c4be35f1@linaro.org> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <99906aad-e22a-8cc3-8c49-4e2a2ce3d0e9@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:53:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <634cf76a-f1b9-138a-2ed4-e666c4be35f1@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/15] s390x/tcg: Implement XxC and checks for most FP instructions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Cornelia Huck On 13.02.19 20:31, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 2/13/19 6:33 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> With the floating-point extension facility >> - CONVERT FROM LOGICAL >> - CONVERT TO LOGICAL >> - CONVERT TO FIXED >> - CONVERT FROM FIXED >> - LOAD FP INTEGER >> have both, a rounding mode specification and the inexact-exception control >> (XxC). Other instructions will be handled separatly. >> >> Check for valid rounding modes and forward also the XxC (via m4). To avoid >> a lot of boilerplate code and changes to the helpers, combine both, the >> m3 and m4 field in a combined 32 bit TCG variable. Perform checks at >> a central place, taking in account if the m3 or m4 field was ignore >> before the floating-point extension facility was introduced. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson > >> +static inline bool xxc_from_m34(uint32_t m34) >> +{ >> + /* XxC is bit 1 of m4 */ >> + return (extract32(m34, 4, 4) & 0x4) != 0; > > Better as extract32(m32, 6, 1); Is it "better as" that or "better written as" that? I think "extract32(m34, 4, 4) & 0x4" is slightly easier to understand. (get m4 field and take the bit number 1) Thanks! > > > r~ > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb