Message ID | 1475088120-20244-4-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On 09/28/2016 11:41 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); > + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); Why are you using t0? r~
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:21:00PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/28/2016 11:41 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > > + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); > > + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); > > Why are you using t0? Richard, I don't quite understand your question. This looks correct to me. It's duplicating the low 32-bits of rA into both the low-and high 32-bits of t0, which will then be store to both the low and high 64-bit elements of the VSR. That matches the instruction definition which puts the low 32-bits of RA into every 32-bit element of the vector.
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> writes: > On 09/28/2016 11:41 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: >> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); >> + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); > > Why are you using t0? Thought about dropping it, but wasn't sure if deposit_i64 would change it. Regards, Nikunj
On 09/28/2016 06:53 PM, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:21:00PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 09/28/2016 11:41 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: >>> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); >>> + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); >> >> Why are you using t0? > > Richard, I don't quite understand your question. There's no need for the copy into t0 -- just put rA into those two arguments. r~
On 09/28/2016 07:19 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: > Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> writes: > >> On 09/28/2016 11:41 AM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: >>> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); >>> + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); >> >> Why are you using t0? > > Thought about dropping it, but wasn't sure if deposit_i64 would change it. Nope, all of the tcg-op.c functions are safe that way, only modifying the outputs. r~
diff --git a/target-ppc/translate/vsx-impl.inc.c b/target-ppc/translate/vsx-impl.inc.c index c4c50dd..fa8240f 100644 --- a/target-ppc/translate/vsx-impl.inc.c +++ b/target-ppc/translate/vsx-impl.inc.c @@ -257,6 +257,29 @@ static void gen_mtvsrdd(DisasContext *ctx) tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), cpu_gpr[rB(ctx->opcode)]); } +static void gen_mtvsrws(DisasContext *ctx) +{ + TCGv_i64 t0 = tcg_temp_new_i64(); + + if (xT(ctx->opcode) < 32) { + if (unlikely(!ctx->vsx_enabled)) { + gen_exception(ctx, POWERPC_EXCP_VSXU); + return; + } + } else { + if (unlikely(!ctx->altivec_enabled)) { + gen_exception(ctx, POWERPC_EXCP_VPU); + return; + } + } + + tcg_gen_mov_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)]); + tcg_gen_deposit_i64(cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode)), t0, t0, 32, 32); + tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_vsrh(xT(ctx->opcode)), cpu_vsrl(xT(ctx->opcode))); + + tcg_temp_free_i64(t0); +} + #endif static void gen_xxpermdi(DisasContext *ctx) diff --git a/target-ppc/translate/vsx-ops.inc.c b/target-ppc/translate/vsx-ops.inc.c index 1287973..d5f5b87 100644 --- a/target-ppc/translate/vsx-ops.inc.c +++ b/target-ppc/translate/vsx-ops.inc.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ GEN_HANDLER_E(mfvsrd, 0x1F, 0x13, 0x01, 0x0000F800, PPC_NONE, PPC2_VSX207), GEN_HANDLER_E(mtvsrd, 0x1F, 0x13, 0x05, 0x0000F800, PPC_NONE, PPC2_VSX207), GEN_HANDLER_E(mfvsrld, 0X1F, 0x13, 0x09, 0x0000F800, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA300), GEN_HANDLER_E(mtvsrdd, 0X1F, 0x13, 0x0D, 0x0, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA300), +GEN_HANDLER_E(mtvsrws, 0x1F, 0x13, 0x0C, 0x0000F800, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA300), #endif #define GEN_XX1FORM(name, opc2, opc3, fl2) \