On 05.12.2017 11:20, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:16:15 +0100 > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 04.12.2017 18:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:55:01 +0100 >>> David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We'll need it later on in two places. Refactor it to just indicate the >>>> valid bit. While at it, introduce a define for the used CR14 bit (we'll >>> >>> s/valid bit/validity bits/ >> >> In the PoP they are defined as "validity" (e.g. 11-15) >> >> Vector-register validity (VR) >> External-damage-code validity (EC) >> Floating-point-register validity (FP) >> General-register validity (GR) >> Control-register validity (CR) >> >> So I am not sure if using a slightly different terminology here helps. > > I don't know, "validity" seems to be more in line with the doc? >
Yes, will use "validity" consistently here. Thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
