On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> In handling float64_muladd, if we end up doing a subtraction of the
> product and c, and the 128 bit result of this subtraction happens to
> have its most significant bit in bit 63, we weren't handling this
> correctly when attempting to normalize to put the most significant
> bit into bit 126. We would end up doing a right shift by a negative
> number (undefined behaviour in C) so at best we would return an
> incorrect result to the guest. MSB in bit 63 has to be handled as a
> special case separately from MSB in 0..62 and MSB in 63..126. (MSB
> in 127 is not possible.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> ---
> Specific test vector which triggers this:
> a = 3fffffffffe00000 b = 3fffffffffe00000 c = c00fffffffc00000
>
> Also tested with my usual set of random test vectors.
>
> fpu/softfloat.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fpu/softfloat.c b/fpu/softfloat.c
> index 83ccc4b..7ba51b6 100644
> --- a/fpu/softfloat.c
> +++ b/fpu/softfloat.c
> @@ -3898,9 +3898,15 @@ float64 float64_muladd(float64 a, float64 b, float64
> c, int flags STATUS_PARAM)
> }
> zExp -= shiftcount;
> } else {
> - shiftcount = countLeadingZeros64(zSig1) - 1;
> - zSig0 = zSig1 << shiftcount;
> - zExp -= (shiftcount + 64);
> + shiftcount = countLeadingZeros64(zSig1);
> + if (shiftcount == 0) {
> + zSig0 = (zSig1 >> 1) | (zSig1 & 1);
> + zExp -= 63;
> + } else {
> + shiftcount--;
> + zSig0 = zSig1 << shiftcount;
> + zExp -= (shiftcount + 64);
> + }
> }
> return roundAndPackFloat64(zSign, zExp, zSig0 STATUS_VAR);
> }
Thanks, applied.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
