Re: [PATCH 09/10] target/arm: Implement FPSCR.LTPSIZE for M-profile LOB extension

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 21:06, Richard Henderson
<richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
> I think these two sets of masking are confusing.
> Perhaps usefully rearranged as
>
>     if (!fp16) {
>         val &= ~fz16;
>     }
>     vfp_set_fpscr_to_host(env, val);
>
>     if (!m-profile) {
>         vec_len = extract32(val, 16, 3);
>         vec_stride = extract32(val, 20, 2);
>     }
>     val &= 0xf7c80000;
>     if (lob) {
>         val |= 4 << 16;
>     }
>     fpscr = val;

Yeah, probably cleaner.

The other thing I wondered about is whether we should
be setting vec_len/vec_stride for an A-profile CPU which
doesn't implement the short-vector extension (ie where
MVFR0.FPShVec is zero). But that gets a bit awkward: v8A
allows an implementation to make Stride and Len be RAZ,
but v7A didn't permit that and so I think we would need
to distinguish:
 * has short-vector support (eg Cortex-A9)
 * v8A, can implement FPSCR.{Stride,Len} as RAZ/WI
 * no short-vector support, Stride/Len can be written
   but the only effect is that some insns must UNDEF
   (eg Cortex-A7)

I think at the moment we currently provide short-vector
support for everything, which is wrong but wrong in
the direction that means more guest code runs...

thanks
-- PMM