On 9/29/23 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> writes:
On 9/23/23 10:25, Michael Tokarev wrote:
23.09.2023 10:12, Cédric Le Goater:
--- a/target/ppc/int_helper.c
+++ b/target/ppc/int_helper.c
@@ -2022,11 +2022,11 @@ void helper_vsum4ubs(CPUPPCState *env, ppc_avr_t *r,
ppc_avr_t *a, ppc_avr_t *b)
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(r->u32); i++) { \
uint16_t e = b->u16[hi ? i : i + 4]; \
uint8_t a = (e >> 15) ? 0xff : 0; \
- uint8_t r = (e >> 10) & 0x1f; \
+ uint8_t _r = (e >> 10) & 0x1f; \
uint8_t g = (e >> 5) & 0x1f; \
- uint8_t b = e & 0x1f; \
+ uint8_t _b = e & 0x1f; \
I'd suggest to rename all of them here to have the same pattern. Maybe.. :)
or maybe use the field names from the ISA : VRT,VRA,VRB ?
Should I expect a respin?
If not, anyone ready to give an R-by as is?
This one I can respin. I agree with Michael that some consistency is
preferable. Preparing a v2 full of '_'.
Thanks,
C.
