On 10/3/25 19:04, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 3/10/25 10:58, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 3/10/25 10:47, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
Maybe better as
MemOp mop = (target_words_bigendian() ? MO_BE : MO_LE) |
size_memop(size);
adjust_endianness(mr, &mrfd.data, size_memop(size), mop);
Do you think defining MO_TE as this expression is a good idea?
There are not so many references to MO_TE outside target/ or accel/tcg/.
Indeed, after this change, the only ones left are in hw/arm/armv7m.c,
which (because it's Arm) can be changed to MO_LE.
I see a bit more than that (17 files):
hw/arm/armv7m.c
include/exec/memop.h
target/arm/tcg/helper-a64.c
target/arm/tcg/translate.c
target/hexagon/idef-parser/parser-helpers.c
target/hppa/translate.c
target/i386/tcg/emit.c.inc
target/loongarch/tcg/insn_trans/trans_vec.c.inc
target/m68k/translate.c
target/mips/tcg/mips16e_translate.c.inc
target/riscv/translate.c
target/rx/translate.c
target/s390x/tcg/mem_helper.c
target/s390x/tcg/translate.c
target/s390x/tcg/translate_vx.c.inc
target/sparc/ldst_helper.c
target/sparc/translate.c
For targets tied to single endianness, we can replace using gsed,
but using a helper is clearer (see for example commit 415aae543ed
target/microblaze: Consider endianness while translating code").
Plus more (22 files) who relies on:
MO_TE* variants (which relies on MO_TE transitively)
Thus my proposal to have a first change to MO_TE definition, and
eventually do the change later.
What do you think?
Removing MO_TE is in my TODO list.
I started with Microblaze (now merged) to get familiar, then had
a look at ARM (see i.e.
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/
and
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/).
I also took care of MIPS few years ago but I need to rebase,
however it isn't in the priority list.
