On 07/09/2014 09:28 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > I don't think we should use softfloat flag bits for keeping > information which isn't about softfloat's status. Why can't > you just put this in the per-CPU state?
It is (mostly) being stored in per-CPU state. But for efficiency, the per-CPU state is in the softfloat format. For this new bit, I'd prefer to not require a second load to examine the exception flags for the insn. And while I could privately define a symbol for the unused bit in the existing softfloat status, that seemed more hazardous than just defining the bit in the global softfloat enumeration. r~
