On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:42:00PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 April 2011 22:00, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote:
>
> > @@ -511,4 +530,11 @@ int floatx80_is_quiet_nan( floatx80 a1 )
> > return ( ( u.i.high & 0x7FFF ) == 0x7FFF ) && (uint64_t) ( u.i.low<<1 );
> > }
> >
> > +int floatx80_is_any_nan( floatx80 a1 )
> > +{
> > + floatx80u u;
> > + u.f = a1;
> > + return ((u.i.high & 0x7FFF) == 0x7FFF) && ( u.i.low<<1 );
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif
>
> As you can just see from the context, the new function is
> actually identical to the existing floatx80_is_quiet_nan(),
> but the latter is wrong, not this patch :-)
>
> Nobody seems to use floatx80_is_quiet_nan() so if we're just
> going to nuke softfloat-native shortly there's no point fixing
> it I guess.
>
IIRC, we already discovered that when changing the name of the nan()
functions. I also don't plan to fix it, it's one more reason to kill
softfloat-native.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
