https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #46 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #44) > Created attachment 116593 [details] > implement ldbrx as 64-bit load and Iop_Reverse8sIn64_x1 > > Real implementation of ldbrx as 64-bit load and Iop_Reverse8sIn64_x1. Regardless of the fact that there are still misaligned ldbrxs to deal with, I think this is good and should land. I would ask: * for "case 0x214: // ldbrx (Load Doubleword Byte-Reverse Indexed)" please add a comment to say that dis_int_ldst_rev's caller guarantees to ask for this instruction to be decoded only in 64-bit mode * for the backend expression, it's fine, except that for // r = (r & 0x00000000FFFFFFFF) << 32 | (r & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000) >> 32; there's no need to do the masking since the shifts will remove all of the bits that just got masked out anyway. So we can skip the _LI, the NOT and the two ANDs. * oh .. and I think the whole thing (insn selection for Iop_Reverse8sIn64_x1) needs to be guarded by the is-this-64-bit-mode boolean (env->mode64 or something like that) since we don't want to be emitting this bit of code in 32 bit mode. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
