On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 20:29, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/6/19 12:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > + n = (a->imm4h << 28) & 0x80000000;
> > + i = ((a->imm4h << 4) & 0x70) | a->imm4l;
> > + if (i & 0x40) {
> > + i |= 0x780;
> > + } else {
> > + i |= 0x800;
> > + }
> > + n |= i << 19;
>
> Can we reuse vfp_expand_imm here? Given that you don't have pure code motion
> from the old code (due to field extraction) it doesn't feel wrong to go ahead
> and fix this wart now.
I dunno, I'd kind of prefer to do it later. We're already
drifting away from the old code as you say, and going
straight to vfp_expand_imm() makes it even less clear that
we're doing the same thing the old code was...
thanks
-- PMM
