Re: [PATCH 03/46] tcg/optimize: Add fold_masks_zsa, fold_masks_zs, fold_masks_z

[Pierrick Bouvier]

On 12/17/24 19:20, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/17/24 14:03, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > > +__attribute__((unused))
> > > +static bool fold_masks_zs(OptContext *ctx, TCGOp *op,
> > > +                          uint64_t z_mask, uint64_t s_mask)
> > > +{
> > > +    return fold_masks_zsa(ctx, op, z_mask, s_mask, -1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +__attribute__((unused))
> > > +static bool fold_masks_z(OptContext *ctx, TCGOp *op, uint64_t z_mask)
> > > +{
> > > +    return fold_masks_zsa(ctx, op, z_mask, smask_from_zmask(z_mask), -1);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool fold_masks(OptContext *ctx, TCGOp *op)
> > > +{
> > > +    return fold_masks_zsa(ctx, op, ctx->z_mask, ctx->s_mask, ctx->a_mask);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >    /*
> > >     * Convert @op to NOT, if NOT is supported by the host.
> > >     * Return true f the conversion is successful, which will still
> >
> > I see the direction, but why not simply use a structure for this?
> >
> > If I understand correctly, we'll only pass the masks to callees, so it's easy 
> > to pass the
> > pointer down (without any heap allocation needed), and we can have associated 
> > builder
> > functions to create the struct only with a limited set of masks, or directly 
> > from an
> > existing "ctx".
>
> Why would we want to use a structure?  I'm confused by the question.

When I started reading the series, I thought we would keep the flags in 
ctx structure, but after finishing it, I understood better what was the 
intention.

That said, it's just a matter of preference, between having individual 
variables or having a struct containing them, with functions to operate 
on it.

> r~