From 40aa54447d268d1b84733b91030cb2a7541d68e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: degasus Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:07:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Jit64: Drop very outdated comment about idle skipping. --- Source/Core/Core/PowerPC/Jit64/Jit_LoadStore.cpp | 14 -------------- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/Source/Core/Core/PowerPC/Jit64/Jit_LoadStore.cpp b/Source/Core/Core/PowerPC/Jit64/Jit_LoadStore.cpp index df2ff86841..e6f8f48b4d 100644 --- a/Source/Core/Core/PowerPC/Jit64/Jit_LoadStore.cpp +++ b/Source/Core/Core/PowerPC/Jit64/Jit_LoadStore.cpp @@ -117,26 +117,12 @@ void Jit64::lXXx(UGeckoInstruction inst) signExtend = true; } - // TODO(ector): Make it dynamically enable/disable idle skipping where appropriate - // Will give nice boost to dual core mode - // (mb2): I agree, - // IMHO those Idles should always be skipped and replaced by a more controllable "native" Idle - // methode - // ... maybe the throttle one already do that :p - // TODO: We shouldn't use a debug read here. It should be possible to get - // the following instructions out of the JIT state. if (CPU::GetState() != CPU::CPU_STEPPING && inst.OPCD == 32 && MergeAllowedNextInstructions(2) && (inst.hex & 0xFFFF0000) == 0x800D0000 && (js.op[1].inst.hex == 0x28000000 || (SConfig::GetInstance().bWii && js.op[1].inst.hex == 0x2C000000)) && js.op[2].inst.hex == 0x4182fff8) { - // TODO(LinesPrower): - // - Rewrite this! - // It seems to be ugly and inefficient, but I don't know JIT stuff enough to make it right - // It only demonstrates the idea - - // do our job at first s32 offset = (s32)(s16)inst.SIMM_16; gpr.BindToRegister(a, true, false); gpr.BindToRegister(d, false, true);