To be clear, I just ran into the problem of the update of the carry flag but
I'm not at all a specialist of SPARC assembly.
From what I've understood, Paul is certainly right when suggesting to add a
fix for the SPARC64 case (for the addxcc and subxcc, not addx and subx) and I
send a new versio
Blue Swirl a écrit :
Doesn't this condition in addx and the corresponding line in subx need
similar
treatment?
They don't change the flags.
ADDX (now named ADDC in v9) doesn't change the flags, while ADDXcc
(ADDCcc) does. The cc versions also compute overflow.
cf. SPARC v9 on www.sparg.org
On Monday 10 April 2006 19:04, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >Doesn't this condition in addx and the corresponding line in subx need
> >similar
> >treatment?
>
> They don't change the flags.
It certainly look like they do.
In particular if TARGET_SPARC64 we have
if ((T0 & 0x) < (src1 & 0xf
Doesn't this condition in addx and the corresponding line in subx need
similar
treatment?
They don't change the flags.
_
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415a
