Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> writes:
> On 28/09/2019 18:45, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > Hi Aleksandar, > > Thanks for taking a look at this! > >> Mark and Paul (and Stefan), >> >> Thanks for spotting this and pinpointing the culprit commit. I guess Stefan >> is going >> to respond soon, but, in the meantime, I took a look at the commit in >> question: >> >> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/4e6d0920e7547e6af4bbac5ffe9adfe6ea621822 >> >> I don't have at the moment any dev/test environment handy, but I did manual >> inspection of the code, and here is what I found (in order of importance, >> perceived >> by me): >> <snip> > >> Given all these circumstances, perhaps the most reasonable solution would be >> to >> revert the commit in question, and allow Stefan enough dev and test time to >> hopefully >> submit a new, better, version later on. > > Given that it has been broken for 3 months now, I don't think we're in any > major rush > to revert ASAP. I'd prefer to give Stefan a bit more time first since he does > report > some substantial speed improvements from these new implementations. Is the denbcdq instruction exposed in any standard float operations? Once this is fixed it would be worth adding a testcase (either ppc64 specific or multiarch) so protect it from regression in the future. > > > ATB, > > Mark. -- Alex Bennée
