On 2 July 2012 16:25, Catalin Patulea wrote:
> FPREM1 now passes the TestFloat floatx80_rem suite (and FPREM is implemented
> very
> similarly).
>
> The code (the bulk of which is remainder_kernel and do_fprem) is derived from
> Bochs SVN revision 11224 dated 2012-06-21 10:33:37 -0700, with conve
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Catalin Patulea wrote:
> FPREM1 now passes the TestFloat floatx80_rem suite (and FPREM is implemented
> very
> similarly).
>
> The code (the bulk of which is remainder_kernel and do_fprem) is derived from
> Bochs SVN revision 11224 dated 2012-06-21 10:33:37 -0700,
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Catalin Patulea wrote:
>
> FPREM1 now passes the TestFloat floatx80_rem suite (and FPREM is implemented
> very
> similarly).
>
> The code (the bulk of which is remainder_kernel and do_fprem) is derived from
> Bochs SVN revision 11224 dated 2012-06-21 10:33:37 -070
FPREM1 now passes the TestFloat floatx80_rem suite (and FPREM is implemented
very
similarly).
The code (the bulk of which is remainder_kernel and do_fprem) is derived from
Bochs SVN revision 11224 dated 2012-06-21 10:33:37 -0700, with conversions to
Qemu type aliases, C features only, etc. as nee
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl for CODING_STYLE issues, I spotted one
> slightly misplaced if brace, and one empty line at the bottom seemed to
> have indentation (git-am complains about that, too).
Done. The only issue left is a false pos
On 29 June 2012 14:13, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 28.06.2012 01:00, schrieb Catalin Patulea:
>> /*
>> +| Returns 1 if the extended double-precision floating-point value `a' is an
>> +| unsupported; otherwise returns 0.
>>
Am 28.06.2012 01:00, schrieb Catalin Patulea:
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hacking up the FPREM and FPREM1 i386 instructions (without KVM) to
> be implemented using SoftFloat only. This was motivated by some correctness
> issues
> that we noticed with the current implementation which follows the AM
On 29 June 2012 02:50, Catalin Patulea wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> No new code should be using the uint64 &c types (which are
>> "at least NN bits wide") -- uint64_t or uint_fast64_t please.
> Ok, changed some {int -> flag} and {uint64 -> uint64_t}.
>
> Th
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > /*
> > +| Returns 1 if the extended double-precision floating-point value `a' is an
> > +| unsupported; otherwise returns 0.
>
> an unsupported what?
I think it sh
On 28 June 2012 00:00, Catalin Patulea wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I've been hacking up the FPREM and FPREM1 i386 instructions (without KVM) to
> be implemented using SoftFloat only. This was motivated by some correctness
> issues
> that we noticed with the current implementation which follows the AM
Am 28.06.2012 01:00, schrieb Catalin Patulea:
Hey guys,
I've been hacking up the FPREM and FPREM1 i386 instructions (without KVM) to be
implemented using SoftFloat only. This was motivated by some correctness issues
that we noticed with the current implementation which follows the AMD datasheet
Hey guys,
I've been hacking up the FPREM and FPREM1 i386 instructions (without KVM) to be
implemented using SoftFloat only. This was motivated by some correctness issues
that we noticed with the current implementation which follows the AMD
datasheet.I believe the datasheet explains the operation
12 matches
Mail list logo
