On 6/10/19 10:12 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 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...
Fair enough.
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
r~
