On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 18:37 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > J. Mayer wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 12:20 +0200, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > > > I strongly suggest to reuse my code which was in target-i386/helper.c > > > revision 1.80 which was far easier to validate. Moreover, integer > > > divisions from target-i386/helper.c should be put in the same file. > > > > I fully agree with this. I still use the same code in the PowerPC > > op_helper.c file because I never conviced myself that the host_utils > > version was bug-free. I would likely switch to the common version if I > > could be sure it cannot lead to any regression. > > Like this? Questions/Comments I have: > - Is the BSD-style copyright still ok for this version?
This I cannot tell. Fabrice should say how he feels about it. 1 detail: I just copied Fabrice code from i386 target, then I don't own any copyright on it... > - The x86-64 assembler is untested for this version, could you check > it works for you? I could check this, as I got an amd64 host. As the optimized version may lead to emit only one or a few host instructions, it may be great to have them be static inline to make gcc able to fully optimize the code. One other point: you may prefer not to change the host-utils API to avoid changes i386 and Mips. It may also be safer, to keep the x86_64 optimized code unchanged. I don't care about the argument order, I can adapt and optimize the code in the PowerPC target for this later. > - SPARC and Alpha look like they will break on 32bit hosts, they should > do multiplications the same way as the other 64bit targets. I don't think Alpha would not work on 32 bits hosts but I fully agree it should use the same helpers. Especially because it's obvious that umulh is bugged ! -- Jocelyn Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
