On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jason Wessel <jason.wes...@windriver.com> 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 = 24 and xmm0 = -100 > > This was found running the glib2 binding tests where it prints the message: > /binding/transform: > GLib-GObject-WARNING **: value "24.000000" of type `gdouble' is invalid or > out of range for property `value' of type `gdouble' > aborting... > > Using a signed comparison fixes the problem. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wes...@windriver.com> > --- > target-i386/ops_sse.h | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target-i386/ops_sse.h b/target-i386/ops_sse.h > index aa41d25..bcc0ed9 100644 > --- a/target-i386/ops_sse.h > +++ b/target-i386/ops_sse.h > @@ -584,8 +584,8 @@ void helper_ ## name ## sd (Reg *d, Reg *s)\ > #define FPU_SUB(size, a, b) float ## size ## _sub(a, b, &env->sse_status) > #define FPU_MUL(size, a, b) float ## size ## _mul(a, b, &env->sse_status) > #define FPU_DIV(size, a, b) float ## size ## _div(a, b, &env->sse_status) > -#define FPU_MIN(size, a, b) (a) < (b) ? (a) : (b) > -#define FPU_MAX(size, a, b) (a) > (b) ? (a) : (b)
Isn't maxsd a floating-point instruction? If so, shouldn't FPU_{MIN,MAX} use softfloat operations? Laurent > +#define FPU_MIN(size, a, b) (int ## size ## _t)(a) < (int ## size ## _t)(b) > ? (a) : (b) > +#define FPU_MAX(size, a, b) (int ## size ## _t)(a) > (int ## size ## _t)(b) > ? (a) : (b) > #define FPU_SQRT(size, a, b) float ## size ## _sqrt(b, &env->sse_status) > > SSE_HELPER_S(add, FPU_ADD) > -- > 1.7.1 > > >