On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:39:47AM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:16:29PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > This allow to reduce the number of macros.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net>
> >> > ---
> >> > target-mips/dsp_helper.c | 384
> >> > ++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> >> > 1 file changed, 116 insertions(+), 268 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/target-mips/dsp_helper.c b/target-mips/dsp_helper.c
> >> > index aed4c63..e01c8a9 100644
> >> > --- a/target-mips/dsp_helper.c
> >> > +++ b/target-mips/dsp_helper.c
> >> > @@ -1078,7 +1078,6 @@ static inline int32_t mipsdsp_cmpu_lt(uint32_t a,
> >> > uint32_t b)
> >> > b = num & MIPSDSP_LO; \
> >> > } while (0)
> >> >
> >> > -#define MIPSDSP_RETURN32(a) ((target_long)(int32_t)a)
> >> > #define MIPSDSP_RETURN32_8(a, b, c, d) ((target_long)(int32_t) \
> >> > (((uint32_t)a << 24) | \
> >> > (((uint32_t)b << 16) | \
> >> > @@ -1111,119 +1110,127 @@ static inline int32_t mipsdsp_cmpu_lt(uint32_t
> >> > a, uint32_t b)
> >> > #endif
> >> >
> >> > /** DSP Arithmetic Sub-class insns **/
> >> > -#define ARITH_PH(name, func) \
> >> > -target_ulong helper_##name##_ph(target_ulong rs, target_ulong rt) \
> >> > -{ \
> >> > - uint16_t rsh, rsl, rth, rtl, temph, templ; \
> >> > - \
> >> > - MIPSDSP_SPLIT32_16(rs, rsh, rsl); \
> >> > - MIPSDSP_SPLIT32_16(rt, rth, rtl); \
> >> > - \
> >> > - temph = mipsdsp_##func(rsh, rth); \
> >> > - templ = mipsdsp_##func(rsl, rtl); \
> >> > - \
> >> > - return MIPSDSP_RETURN32_16(temph, templ); \
> >> > -}
> >> > -
> >> > -#define ARITH_PH_ENV(name, func) \
> >> > -target_ulong helper_##name##_ph(target_ulong rs, target_ulong rt, \
> >> > - CPUMIPSState *env) \
> >> > -{ \
> >> > - uint16_t rsh, rsl, rth, rtl, temph, templ; \
> >> > - \
> >> > - MIPSDSP_SPLIT32_16(rs, rsh, rsl); \
> >> > - MIPSDSP_SPLIT32_16(rt, rth, rtl); \
> >> > - \
> >> > - temph = mipsdsp_##func(rsh, rth, env); \
> >> > - templ = mipsdsp_##func(rsl, rtl, env); \
> >> > - \
> >> > - return MIPSDSP_RETURN32_16(temph, templ); \
> >> > -}
> >> > -
> >> > -
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(addq, add_i16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(addq_s, sat_add_i16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(addu, add_u16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(addu_s, sat_add_u16);
> >> > -
> >> > -ARITH_PH(addqh, rshift1_add_q16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH(addqh_r, rrshift1_add_q16);
> >> > -
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(subq, sub_i16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(subq_s, sat16_sub);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(subu, sub_u16_u16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH_ENV(subu_s, satu16_sub_u16_u16);
> >> > -
> >> > -ARITH_PH(subqh, rshift1_sub_q16);
> >> > -ARITH_PH(subqh_r, rrshift1_sub_q16);
> >> > -
> >> > -#undef ARITH_PH
> >> > -#undef ARITH_PH_ENV
> >> > +#define MIPSDSP32_BINOP(name, func, element)
> >> > \
> >> > +target_ulong helper_##name(target_ulong rs, target_ulong rt)
> >> > \
> >> > +{
> >> > \
> >> > + DSP32Value ds, dt;
> >> > \
> >> > + unsigned int i, n;
> >> > \
> >> > +
> >> > \
> >> > + n = sizeof(DSP32Value) / sizeof(ds.element[0]);
> >> > \
> >> > + ds.sw[0] = rs;
> >> > \
> >> > + dt.sw[0] = rt;
> >> > \
> >> > +
> >> > \
> >> > + for (i = 0 ; i < n ; i++) {
> >> > \
> >>
> >> There's an extra space before ';', please remove. Also in the other
> >> for loops below.
> >
> > It is not something I can find in CODING_STYLE, and it is also not
> > caught by checkpatch.pl.
>
> No, but it's not common style by far:
> egrep -r '--exclude-dir=obj-*' '--exclude-dir=.git*'
> '--exclude-dir=roms' '--exclude-dir=pc-bios' '--exclude-dir=pixman'
> '--include=*.c' 'for.* ;' .|wc -l
> 74
> egrep -r '--exclude-dir=obj-*' '--exclude-dir=.git*'
> '--exclude-dir=roms' '--exclude-dir=pc-bios' '--exclude-dir=pixman'
> '--include=*.c' 'for.*;' .|wc -l
> 4585
>
> Original K&R style, from which QEMU style derives, didn't have the
> spaces either. Perhaps you are influenced by French punctuation rules?
I don't really care if it is common or not. What I am saying is that if
you want a rule to be enforced, it's better to at least have it written.
It's also a good idea to have it added to checkpatch.pl, otherwise the
benefit of this tool is greatly reduced.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
