On 1/12/19 12:10 AM, Bastian Koppelmann wrote: > > On 10/31/18 11:18 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> >> Surely the shri and sari functions need the same shamt >= TARGET_LONG_BITS >> check as slli. Otherwise RV32 shri should definitely produce an assert in >> tcg_gen_shri_tl. >> >> I did wonder about changing the decode of the shift functions such that only >> the top two bits of the imm are reserved for secondary parsing of the shift >> type, and the other 10 bits are passed down into trans_foo. At which point >> the >> TARGET_LONG_BITS check takes care of other illegalities. >> >> Which means that the parsing for slli and slliw are identical, and also that >> for the far future when RV128 is a thing, we don't have to change the >> parsing. > > > I don't quite understand this. Do you want to have one entry in the decode > file > for slli and slliw? > > How is the parsing of slli and slliw identical with this change? As far as I > see it, they are different at least in the opcode.
I meant in the extraction and validation of operands, I think. I'm not really sure where else I was going with this. It has been two months and I don't have the decode in front of me. r~
