On 8/16/24 11:07, Deepak Gupta wrote:
+static bool trans_ssamoswap_w(DisasContext *ctx, arg_amoswap_w *a)
+{
+ REQUIRE_A_OR_ZAAMO(ctx);
+ /* back cfi was not enabled, return false */
+ if (!ctx->bcfi_enabled) {
+ return false;
+ }
Please drop all of these comments which exactly mirror the code and provide no additional
insight.
+static bool gen_sspopchk(DisasContext *ctx, int rs1_reg)
+{
+ /* back cfi was not enabled, return false */
+ if (!ctx->bcfi_enabled) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * sspopchk can only compare with x1 or x5. Everything else defaults to
+ * zimops
+ */
+
+ assert(rs1_reg == 1 || rs1_reg == 5);
These asserts seems redundant. Yes, this is true and a result of the encoding, but
nothing in this function would misbehave if some future extension allowed any other
register number.
r~
