On 6 February 2017 at 08:58, Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 03:39:16PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 3 February 2017 at 15:12, Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> wrote: >> > As I said above, it is based on float128_to_int64() >> >> Ah, right. I think that's probably a bad model to copy because >> it's a conversion to signed integer, not a conversion to >> unsigned integer (so the edge cases are different). > > I checked the original berkeley implementation and I see that > float128_to_uint64 implementation there also is based on > float128_to_int64 implementation with edge cases being different. > > To the best of my understanding, the corner cases for unsigned > int are covered in the above implemenation. Could you please > take a re-look at this ?
OK, but that's about 5 times harder to review because I have to work everything out from scratch rather than being able to say "yes, this is doing everything the same way that our existing known-to-be-good other function is doing it". thanks -- PMM
