# *CAN* these even be 64-bit capable? I don't think they are.
with m.Case(MicrOp.OP_RLC):
comb += Assume(ra == 0)
-
- # Duplicate some signals so that they're much easier to find in gtkwave.
- # Pro-tip: when debugging, factor out expressions into explicitly named
- # signals, and search using a unique grep-tag (RLC in my case). After
- # debugging, resubstitute values to comply with surrounding code norms.
+
+ # Duplicate some signals so that they're much easier to find
+ # in gtkwave.
+ # Pro-tip: when debugging, factor out expressions into
+ # explicitly named
+ # signals, and search using a unique grep-tag (RLC in my case).
+ # After
+ # debugging, resubstitute values to comply with surrounding
+ # code norms.
mrl = Signal(64, reset_less=True, name='MASK_FOR_RLC')
comb += mrl.eq(ml | mr)
sh = Signal(6, reset_less=True, name='SH_FOR_RLC')
comb += sh.eq(b[0:6])
- exp_shl = Signal(64, reset_less=True, name='A_SHIFTED_LEFT_BY_SH_FOR_RLC')
+ exp_shl = Signal(64, reset_less=True,
+ name='A_SHIFTED_LEFT_BY_SH_FOR_RLC')
comb += exp_shl.eq((ainp << sh) & 0xFFFFFFFF)
- exp_shr = Signal(64, reset_less=True, name='A_SHIFTED_RIGHT_FOR_RLC')
+ exp_shr = Signal(64, reset_less=True,
+ name='A_SHIFTED_RIGHT_FOR_RLC')
comb += exp_shr.eq((ainp >> (32 - sh)) & 0xFFFFFFFF)
- exp_rot = Signal(64, reset_less=True, name='A_ROTATED_LEFT_FOR_RLC')
+ exp_rot = Signal(64, reset_less=True,
+ name='A_ROTATED_LEFT_FOR_RLC')
comb += exp_rot.eq(exp_shl | exp_shr)
exp_ol = Signal(32, reset_less=True, name='EXPECTED_OL_FOR_RLC')
- comb += exp_ol.eq(field((exp_rot & mrl) | (ainp & ~mrl), 32, 63))
+ comb += exp_ol.eq(field((exp_rot & mrl) | (ainp & ~mrl),
+ 32, 63))
act_ol = Signal(32, reset_less=True, name='ACTUAL_OL_FOR_RLC')
comb += act_ol.eq(field(o, 32, 63))