On 7/31/19 1:27 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:36 PM Richard Henderson > <richard.hender...@linaro.org > <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > On 7/31/19 10:56 AM, Jan Bobek wrote: > > +#define gen_pand_mm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_mm ((env), (s), > (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112) > > +#define gen_pand_xmm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_xmm ((env), (s), > (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112) > > +#define gen_vpand_xmm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_vxmm((env), (s), > (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0123) > > +#define gen_vpand_ymm(env, s, modrm) gen_gvec_ld_modrm_vymm((env), (s), > (modrm), MO_64, tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0123) > > +#define gen_andps_xmm gen_pand_xmm > > +#define gen_vandps_xmm gen_vpand_xmm > > +#define gen_vandps_ymm gen_vpand_ymm > > +#define gen_andpd_xmm gen_pand_xmm > > +#define gen_vandpd_xmm gen_vpand_xmm > > +#define gen_vandpd_ymm gen_vpand_ymm > > > Why all of these extra defines? > > > Because of code clarity and safety, I would say. > > This line: > > case 0x54 | M_0F: gen_andps_xmm(env, s, modrm); return; > > looks much clearer than this one: > > case 0x54 | M_0F: gen_gvec_ld_modrm_mm(env, s, modrm, MO_64, > tcg_gen_gvec_and, 0112) > > and such organization is also much less prone to copy/paste bugs etc.
I'm not convinced. These macros will be used exactly once. Because there is no reuse, there is no added safety. There is only the chance of a typo in a location removed from the actual use within the switch. I agree that the goal is to minimize any replication per case. But I don't think this particular arrangement of macros is the way to accomplish that. r~
