Re: [PATCH 16/55] target/arm: Implement MVE VREV16, VREV32, VREV64

[Richard Henderson]

On 6/7/21 9:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> +static uint64_t mask_to_bytemask8(uint16_t mask)
> +{
> +    return mask_to_bytemask4(mask) |
> +        ((uint64_t)mask_to_bytemask4(mask >> 4) << 32);
> +}

Again, suggest to share the array from expand_pred_b.

> +DO_1OP(vrev16b, 2, uint16_t, H2, bswap16)
> +DO_1OP(vrev32b, 4, uint32_t, H4, bswap32)
> +DO_1OP(vrev32h, 4, uint32_t, H4, hswap32)
> +DO_1OP(vrev64b, 8, uint64_t, , bswap64)
> +DO_1OP(vrev64h, 8, uint64_t, , hswap64)
> +DO_1OP(vrev64w, 8, uint64_t, , wswap64)

I've started to wonder if we shouldn't add a no-op H8, just so we don't have 
the empty argument for checkpatch to complain about.

And in this particular case I suppose we could H##ESIZE, which would then 
negate my earlier suggestion for using sizeof.

> +    MVEGenOneOpFn *fns[] = {

static const, etc.


r~