Jason, ping? Are you going to do a v3 of this patch?
Thanks
-- PMM
On 19 November 2011 16:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 November 2011 14:20, Jason Wessel wrote:
>> The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
>> numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introd
On 8 November 2011 14:20, Jason Wessel wrote:
> The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
> numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introduced in
> 347ac8e356 (target-i386: switch to softfloat).
>
> The case that fails is:
>
> maxsd %xmm1,%xmm0
>
> When xmm1
On 8 November 2011 14:45, Jason Wessel wrote:
> On 11/08/2011 08:40 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 8 November 2011 14:22, Jason Wessel wrote:
>>> +#define FPU_MIN(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(a, b, &env->sse_status) ?
>>> (a) : (b)
>>> +#define FPU_MAX(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(b, a,
On 11/08/2011 08:40 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 November 2011 14:22, Jason Wessel wrote:
>> +#define FPU_MIN(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(a, b, &env->sse_status) ?
>> (a) : (b)
>> +#define FPU_MAX(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(b, a, &env->sse_status) ?
>> (a) : (b)
> This will give th
On 8 November 2011 14:22, Jason Wessel wrote:
> +#define FPU_MIN(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(a, b, &env->sse_status) ?
> (a) : (b)
> +#define FPU_MAX(size, a, b) float ## size ## _lt(b, a, &env->sse_status) ?
> (a) : (b)
This will give the wrong answers for special cases involving +0, -0
a
The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introduced in
347ac8e356 (target-i386: switch to softfloat).
The case that fails is:
maxsd %xmm1,%xmm0
When xmm1 = 24 and xmm0 = -100
This was found running the glib2 binding
On 11/08/2011 07:48 AM, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jason Wessel
> wrote:
>> The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
>> numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introduced in
>> 347ac8e356 (target-i386: switch to softfloat).
>>
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jason Wessel wrote:
> The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
> numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introduced in
> 347ac8e356 (target-i386: switch to softfloat).
>
> The case that fails is:
>
> maxsd %xmm1,%xmm0
>
> When
The maxsd instruction needs to take into account the sign of the
numbers 64 bit numbers. This is a regression that was introduced in
347ac8e356 (target-i386: switch to softfloat).
The case that fails is:
maxsd %xmm1,%xmm0
When xmm1 = 24 and xmm0 = -100
This was found running the glib2 binding
