On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 17:08, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/25 08:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > diff --git a/target/arm/vfp_helper.c b/target/arm/vfp_helper.c
> > index 3c8f3e65887..8c79ab4fc8a 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/vfp_helper.c
> > +++ b/target/arm/vfp_helper.c
> > @@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ static void vfp_set_fpcr_masked(CPUARMState *env,
> > uint32_t val, uint32_t mask)
> > if (!cpu_isar_feature(any_fp16, cpu)) {
> > val &= ~FPCR_FZ16;
> > }
> > + if (!cpu_isar_feature(aa64_afp, cpu)) {
> > + val &= ~(FPCR_FIZ | FPCR_AH | FPCR_NEP);
> > + }
>
> I suppose this aa64 check, without is_a64(), is ok because the a32 caller has
> already
> applied FPSCR_FPCR_MASK. And similarly for the ebf16 check below.
>
> >
> > if (!cpu_isar_feature(aa64_ebf16, cpu)) {
> > val &= ~FPCR_EBF;
>
> But it does feel like we could usefully move these to vfp_set_fpcr, or such?
I dunno, having all the feature tests in one place makes
sense to me. Since we're already doing it here for aa64_ebf16,
I think I prefer to keep the aa64_afp check the same way.
This series is big enough as it is without adding another
cleanup...
thanks
-- PMM
