On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:42 AM Philipp Tomsich <[email protected]> wrote: > > While changing to the use of cfg_ptr, the conditions for REQUIRE_ZB[ABCS] > inadvertently became inverted and slipped through the initial testing (which > used RV64GC_XVentanaCondOps as a target). > This fixes the regression. > > Tested against SPEC2017 w/ GCC 12 (prerelease) for RV64GC_zba_zbb_zbc_zbs. > > Fixes: 718143c126 ("target/riscv: add a MAINTAINERS entry for > XVentanaCondOps") > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <[email protected]> > > --- > We may want to squash this onto the affected commit, if it hasn't made > it beyond the next-tree, yet. Yeah, agreed. I'll squash it in Alistair > > target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_rvb.c.inc | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_rvb.c.inc > b/target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_rvb.c.inc > index f9bd3b7ec4..e3c6b459d6 100644 > --- a/target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_rvb.c.inc > +++ b/target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_rvb.c.inc > @@ -19,25 +19,25 @@ > */ > > #define REQUIRE_ZBA(ctx) do { \ > - if (ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zba) { \ > + if (!ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zba) { \ > return false; \ > } \ > } while (0) > > #define REQUIRE_ZBB(ctx) do { \ > - if (ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbb) { \ > + if (!ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbb) { \ > return false; \ > } \ > } while (0) > > #define REQUIRE_ZBC(ctx) do { \ > - if (ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbc) { \ > + if (!ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbc) { \ > return false; \ > } \ > } while (0) > > #define REQUIRE_ZBS(ctx) do { \ > - if (ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbs) { \ > + if (!ctx->cfg_ptr->ext_zbs) { \ > return false; \ > } \ > } while (0) > -- > 2.34.1 > >
