Hi Richard,
On 6/17/24 00:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 6/13/24 02:33, Chinmay Rath wrote:
+/* EA <- (ra == 0) ? 0 : GPR[ra] */
+static TCGv do_ea_calc_ra(DisasContext *ctx, int ra)
+{
+ TCGv EA;
+ if (!ra) {
+ EA = tcg_constant_tl(0);
+ return EA;
+ }
+ EA = tcg_temp_new();
+ if (NARROW_MODE(ctx)) {
+ tcg_gen_ext32u_tl(EA, cpu_gpr[ra]);
+ } else {
+ tcg_gen_mov_tl(EA, cpu_gpr[ra]);
Why are you making a copy, rather than just returning cpu_gpr[ra]?
True, this tcg move is redundant. Was carried away to maintain
uniformity with the original do_ea_calc function. My bad!
This can rather just be :
/* ea <- (ra == 0) ? 0 : GPR[ra] */
static TCGv do_ea_calc_ra(DisasContext *ctx, int ra)
{
TCGv EA;
if (!ra) {
return tcg_constant_tl(0);
}
if (NARROW_MODE(ctx)) {
EA = tcg_temp_new();
tcg_gen_ext32u_tl(EA, cpu_gpr[ra]);
} else {
return cpu_gpr[ra];
}
return EA;
}
If you need to modify the resulting EA, then you also need to make a
copy for 0.
Hey, didn't properly get what you meant here.
Did you mean : Since I'm using a tcg_constant for 0, if the EA is to be
modified later, this constant would be an issue, in which case, I should
make a copy for it ??
Considering that, there are no tcg level modifications with this EA.
However, the underlying helper method, which considers this EA as a
target_ulong type does modify it, which I don't think should be an issue.
Please let me know if I missed something.
Thanks & Regards,
Chinmay
r~
