On 3/5/19 9:16 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Really though I don't feel too strongly about this, so would you like me to
> rename it avr_full_offset() to match the existing vsr_full_offset()?
I do think matching the names makes things clearer.
r~
On 03/03/2019 23:29, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 3/3/19 9:23 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> All TCG vector operations require pointers to the base address of the vector
>> rather than separate access to the top and bottom 64-bits. Convert
>> the VMX TCG instructions to use a new avr_offset() fun
On 3/3/19 9:23 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> All TCG vector operations require pointers to the base address of the vector
> rather than separate access to the top and bottom 64-bits. Convert
> the VMX TCG instructions to use a new avr_offset() function instead of
> avr64_offset(), which can itself
All TCG vector operations require pointers to the base address of the vector
rather than separate access to the top and bottom 64-bits. Convert
the VMX TCG instructions to use a new avr_offset() function instead of
avr64_offset(), which can itself be written as a simple wrapper onto
vsr_full_offset
