On 11/02/19 6:30 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi Sandipan,
>
>> + {
>> + .descr = "RA = LONG_MIN | INT_MIN, RB =
>> LONG_MIN | INT_MIN",
>> + .instr = PPC_INST_ADDC | ___PPC_RT(20) |
>> ___PPC_RA(21) | ___PPC_RB(22),
>> + .regs =
>> + {
>> + .gpr[21] = LONG_MIN | (uint) INT_MIN,
>> + .gpr[22] = LONG_MIN | (uint) INT_MIN,
>> + }
>> + }
> I don't know what this bit pattern is supposed to represent - is it
> supposed to be the smallest 32bit integer and the smallest 64bit
> integer 8000000080000000 - so you test 32 and 64 bit overflow at the
> same time?
>
Yes, exactly.
>
> For the series:
> Tested-by: Daniel Axtens <d...@axtens.net> # Power8 LE
>
> I notice the output is quite verbose, and doesn't include a line when it
> starts:
>
> [ 0.826181] Running code patching self-tests ...
> [ 0.826607] Running feature fixup self-tests ...
> [ 0.826615] nop : R0 = LONG_MAX
> [PASS]
> [ 0.826617] add : RA = LONG_MIN, RB = LONG_MIN
> [PASS]
>
> Maybe it would be good to include a line saying "Running single-step
> emulation self-tests" and perhaps by default on printing when there is a
> failure.
>
That makes sense. Will include it in the next revision.
> Finally, I think you might be able to squash patches 1 and 2 and patches
> 4 and 5, but that's just my personal preference.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
