On 9/24/19 8:35 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > struct PPC_DFP { > CPUPPCState *env; > - uint64_t t64[2], a64[2], b64[2]; > + ppc_vsr_t vt, va, vb;
This I don't think is a good idea. It's not a vsr_t. I think this step would be clearer with union { decimal64 d; uint64_t i; } u; union { decimal128 d; uint64_t i[2]; } u; in the separate dfp_prepare_decimal{64,128} functions. Which is basically what we have before, only smooshing the a64 and b64 scratch-pads together, and using a nice union instead of an ugly cast. r~