Re: [PATCH 2/4] target/m68k: increase size of m68k CPU features from uint32_t to uint64_t

[Laurent Vivier]

Le 20/09/2022 à 18:30, Mark Cave-Ayland a écrit :
> On 17/09/2022 23:27, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé via wrote:
>
> > On 17/9/22 14:09, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> > > > There are already 32 feature bits in use, so change the size of the m68k
> > > > CPU features to uint64_t (allong with the associated m68k_feature()
> > > > functions) to allow up to 64 feature bits to be used.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
> > > > ---
> > > > target/m68k/cpu.c | 4 ++--
> > > > target/m68k/cpu.h | 6 +++---
> > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/target/m68k/cpu.c b/target/m68k/cpu.c
> > > > index f681be3a2a..7b4797e2f1 100644
> > > > --- a/target/m68k/cpu.c
> > > > +++ b/target/m68k/cpu.c
> > > > @@ -38,12 +38,12 @@ static bool m68k_cpu_has_work(CPUState *cs)
> > > >
> > > > static void m68k_set_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature)
> > > > {
> > > > -    env->features |= (1u << feature);
> > > > +    env->features |= (1ul << feature);
> >
> >          env->features = deposit64(env->features, feature, 1, 1);
> >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void m68k_unset_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature)
> > > > {
> > > > -    env->features &= (-1u - (1u << feature));
> > > > +    env->features &= (-1ul - (1ul << feature));
> >
> >          env->features = deposit64(env->features, feature, 1, 0);
> >
> > > Should these be ull instead of ul?
> >
> > Yes. Not needed if using the <qemu/bitops.h> extract/deposit API.
>
> I must admit I find the deposit64() variants not particularly easy to read: if we're considering 
> alterations rather than changing the constant suffix then I'd much rather go for:
>
>      env->features |= (1ULL << feature);
>
> and:
>
>      env->features &= ~(1ULL << feature);
>
> Laurent, what would be your preference?

I have no preference, do as you prefer.

> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void m68k_cpu_reset(DeviceState *dev)
> > > > diff --git a/target/m68k/cpu.h b/target/m68k/cpu.h
> > > > index 67b6c12c28..d3384e5d98 100644
> > > > --- a/target/m68k/cpu.h
> > > > +++ b/target/m68k/cpu.h
> > > > @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ typedef struct CPUArchState {
> > > >     struct {} end_reset_fields;
> > > >
> > > >     /* Fields from here on are preserved across CPU reset. */
> > > > -    uint32_t features;
> > > > +    uint64_t features;
> > > > } CPUM68KState;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -539,9 +539,9 @@ enum m68k_features {
> > > >     M68K_FEATURE_TRAPCC,
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > -static inline int m68k_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature)
> > > > +static inline uint64_t m68k_feature(CPUM68KState *env, int feature)
> >
> > Why uint64_t? Can we simplify using a boolean?
>
> I don't really feel strongly either way here. Again I'm happy to go with whatever Laurent would 
> prefer as maintainer.

A boolean seems more logic, I think.

Thanks,
Laurent