On 06/24/2014 01:32 PM, Al Viro wrote: > If you have any ideas for testing, I do have working hw (the box that is > currently alive is ev45, though; I _can_ try to boot a UP1000 one, but > I make no promises regarding its fans, both in PSU and in CPU module ;-/)
Ah. Gotta be careful with ev4/45... half of the fpu is unimplemented, and so if you're not careful all you're testing is the kernel emulation behaviour. > Um? No, I mean having gen_fp_exc_raise() generate a call of one of the 8 > helpers; gen_ieee_arith3() and friends would remain as-is. It's just that > instead of generating load to exc, andi, call of helper_fp_exc_raise_s or > call of helper_fp_exc_raise we would generate a call of one of the > helper_fp_exc_raise{,_u,_v,_s,_su,_sui,_sv,_svi} and let that sucker deal > with loading exc, updating ->fpcr_exc_status and generating traps. Ah, I getcha. Yes, that makes sense. >>> Another thing: shouldn't arithmetics on denorms without /S raise EXC_M_INV, >>> rather than EXC_M_UNF? >> >> No idea. Should they? > > They seem to - both from the arch.manual and from direct experiment... And > they do set FPCR.INV at the same time, not just trigger the trap. Ok. I'll try to make time to fix up some of this stuff this weekend. r~