https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls008/ feedback and questions * TODO: review bug #914 * TODO: review bug #1077 * TODO: remove "_RT" and "_RA"
.
Luke, could you, please, clarify, what's assumed here with "remove _RT and _RA"? From the page I saw this: Notation, Section 1.3.2 When destination register operands (RT, RS) are prefixed by a single underscore (_RT, _RS) the variable also contains the contents of the instruction field. This avoids confusion in pseudocode when a destination register is assigned (RT <- x) but earlier it was the operand bits that were checked (if RT = 0). I assume that we need to discard the underscore from pseudocode variables, is it correct?
(In reply to Dmitry Selyutin from comment #2) > Luke, could you, please, clarify, what's assumed here with "remove _RT and > _RA"? From the page I saw this: > > Notation, Section 1.3.2 > When destination register operands (RT, RS) are prefixed by a single > underscore (_RT, _RS) the variable also contains the contents of the > instruction field. This avoids confusion in pseudocode when a destination > register is assigned (RT <- x) but earlier it was the operand bits that were > checked (if RT = 0). > > I assume that we need to discard the underscore from pseudocode variables, > is it correct? yes. basically (RA) is for accessing the *contents of the regfile* for register RA, where "RA" is just "the register number". however if you want to *assign* to register RA in Power ISA section 1.3 notation you do "RA <- xyz" which obviously does NOT chnge the 5 bits in the binary instruction. this confused the hell out of me so i added _RA notation. unnecessarily. has to go.