Le 12/08/2015 06:07, Richard Henderson a écrit :
> On 08/09/2015 01:13 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> -#define OS_BYTE 0
>> -#define OS_WORD 1
>> -#define OS_LONG 2
>> -#define OS_SINGLE 4
>> -#define OS_DOUBLE 5
>> +#define OS_BYTE 1
>> +#define OS_WORD 2
>> +#define OS_LONG 3
>> +#define OS_SINGLE 4
>> +#define OS_DOUBLE 5
>> +#define OS_EXTENDED 6
>> +#define OS_PACKED 7
>>
>
> Is there a reason you've skipped the 0 value when adding the new values?
I think there is no reason, but if I change the value I have to update
abdc_mem, sbcd_mem instructions as they use it as an
incrementer/decrementer. I agree, it's a strange idea.
>
>> +static inline int insn_opsize(int insn, int pos)
>> +{
>> + switch ((insn >> pos) & 3) {
>
>
> In particular, that change means that insn_opsize is more complicated
> than needed. Further, is there any reason for POS to be a varable?
> Isn't it at the same place for all insns?
>
>> +static inline int ext_opsize(int ext, int pos)
>
> This should probably wait until the fp insns get added.
Yes.
Laurent
