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~

Reply via email to