From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D90C433EF for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EED161181 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:37:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 8EED161181 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen0n.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45094 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT6Bs-00060V-Lt for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:37:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35024) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT69G-0002QR-TP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:35:10 -0400 Received: from [115.28.160.31] (port=39872 helo=mailbox.box.xen0n.name) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT69E-0002gl-Sf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:35:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.9.172] (unknown [101.88.29.172]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailbox.box.xen0n.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B919A633F2; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 01:35:03 +0800 (CST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=xen0n.name; s=mail; t=1632332103; bh=E/iOeN8lkfVTPN+QdiksmYTtFvKgmSTT0EAxY6Xuw5U=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=vNF3Sg0Xhash0AU48P0Fq0rwa47aBiJX1ivfYd9W3ZkTEE17vbBLKxIoq39GJI4lS 3azDB1yTVGUaXTIjcUrtmH6dtfHx4DJGS69MS2vclXfsMO9y+OvSolmzT+sI8PsImO 4SPub/CKUh06Kg31orNE7cGhO9vhv7HeY/I6Uvpw= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 01:35:03 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/94.0a1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/30] accel/tcg/user-exec: Implement CPU-specific signal handler for loongarch64 hosts Content-Language: en-US To: Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: <20210921201915.601245-1-git@xen0n.name> <20210921201915.601245-30-git@xen0n.name> <9e95577b-3c91-5ea0-fe0d-d14dd0bc079b@linaro.org> From: WANG Xuerui In-Reply-To: <9e95577b-3c91-5ea0-fe0d-d14dd0bc079b@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 115.28.160.31 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=115.28.160.31; envelope-from=i.qemu@xen0n.name; helo=mailbox.box.xen0n.name X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hi Richard, On 9/23/21 00:51, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 9/21/21 1:19 PM, WANG Xuerui wrote: >> +        case 0b00011111110: /* stle.w */ >> +        case 0b00011111111: /* stle.d */ >> +            is_write = 1; >> +            break; >> +        default: >> +            /* test for am* instruction range */ >> +            if (0b00011000000 <= sel && sel <= 0b00011100011) { >> +                is_write = 1; >> +            } > > Probably better to fold the range check into the switch with > >   case 0b00011000000 ... 0b00011100011:  /* am* insn range */ I just googled this particular syntax; it looks like a GCC-only extension, but is already used in a few places inside QEMU. So I think I'll take this advice and just make the range another switch arm.