Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] softfloat: Fix division

2018-10-04 Thread Alex Bennée 


Emilio G. Cota  writes:

> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:13:55 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> Richard Henderson  writes:
>>
>> > Changes from v1:
>> >   * Preserve udiv_qrnnd as a separate division primitive that
>> > could be used as a building block for float128 division.
>> >   * Include asm fragments for x86_64, s390x, and ppc64.
>>
>> It passes my fops fdiv_double test but Emilio's test is reporting:
>>
>>   Errors found in f64_div, rounding near_even:
>>   +252.7FF80  +001.E
>>   => +64F.7FF82 x  expected +64F.7FF81 x
>
> Did you rebuild the test program? v2 passes all f64_div tests for me.
>
> Tested-by: Emilio G. Cota 
> for patches 1 and 2.

Hmm I did:

  make clean
  make

in the tests/fp dir multiple times while going through before/after fix
scenarios. And now of course it works

Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée 
Tested-by: Alex Bennée 


>
> Thanks,
>
>   E.


--
Alex Bennée

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] softfloat: Fix division

2018-10-04 Thread Emilio G. Cota 
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:13:55 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Richard Henderson  writes:
> 
> > Changes from v1:
> >   * Preserve udiv_qrnnd as a separate division primitive that
> > could be used as a building block for float128 division.
> >   * Include asm fragments for x86_64, s390x, and ppc64.
> 
> It passes my fops fdiv_double test but Emilio's test is reporting:
> 
>   Errors found in f64_div, rounding near_even:
>   +252.7FF80  +001.E
>   => +64F.7FF82 x  expected +64F.7FF81 x

Did you rebuild the test program? v2 passes all f64_div tests for me.

Tested-by: Emilio G. Cota 
for patches 1 and 2.

Thanks,

E.

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] softfloat: Fix division

2018-10-04 Thread Alex Bennée 


Richard Henderson  writes:

> Changes from v1:
>   * Preserve udiv_qrnnd as a separate division primitive that
> could be used as a building block for float128 division.
>   * Include asm fragments for x86_64, s390x, and ppc64.


It passes my fops fdiv_double test but Emilio's test is reporting:

  Errors found in f64_div, rounding near_even:
  +252.7FF80  +001.E
  => +64F.7FF82 x  expected +64F.7FF81 x
  +000.F  +3FE.F
  => +001.0 ...ux  expected +000.F ...ux
  +000.F  -3FE.F
  => -001.0 ...ux  expected -000.F ...ux
  +000.E  +3FE.F
  => +000.F ...ux  expected +000.E ...ux
  +000.E  +3FF.E
  => +000.8 ...ux  expected +000.7 ...ux
  +000.E  -3FE.F
  => -000.F ...ux  expected -000.E ...ux
  +000.E  -3FF.E
  => -000.8 ...ux  expected -000.7 ...ux
  -401.E7D66F623CB4C  +787.FEFF7FFFE
  => -078.E8CB4F3CAEDB8 x  expected -078.E8CB4F3CAEDB7 x
  +3FC.07FEF  +198.00207
  => +662.FFC00FFD1 x  expected +662.FFC00FFD0 x
  -400.F801F  -41C.FFBDF
  => +3E2.F8431 x  expected +3E2.F8430 x
  -7FE.7FFFB  +3FE.E
  => -7FE.7FFFC0001 x  expected -7FE.7FFFC x
  +001.E  +3FF.F
  => +001.0 ...ux  expected +000.F ...ux
  +001.E  -3FF.F
  => -001.0 ...ux  expected -000.F ...ux
  +3CA.0  +4CF.FE01F
  => +2F9.01001 x  expected +2F9.01000 x
  +3FD.0  -400.03DFF
  => -3FB.F840001E3 x  expected -3FB.F840001E2 x
  +2C6.003EF  -400.40040
  => -2C4.7FF82081E x  expected -2C4.7FF82081D x
  +3FD.1  -3CA.FF0001FFF
  => -431.007FFF006 x  expected -431.007FFF005 x
  -002.FFFDE  -400.F
  => +000.0 ...ux  expected +000.FFFEF ...ux
  +3FE.1  -3FF.001FF
  => -3FD.FFC05 x  expected -3FD.FFC04 x
  +3FF.0  -47E.FC0FF
  => -37F.01FC1 x  expected -37F.01FC0 x

>
> r~
>
>
> Richard Henderson (4):
>   softfloat: Fix division
>   softfloat: Specialize udiv_qrnnd for x86_64
>   softfloat: Specialize udiv_qrnnd for s390x
>   softfloat: Specialize udiv_qrnnd for ppc64
>
>  include/fpu/softfloat-macros.h | 35 +++---
>  fpu/softfloat.c| 35 ++
>  2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)


--
Alex Bennée