On 01/09/2015 01:53 AM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
As this platform can do multiply/divide using 128 bit precision use
these instruction to implement it.
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
As this platform can do multiply/divide using 128 bit precision use
these instruction to implement it.
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/qemu-common.h
2015-01-09 11:24 GMT+00:00 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 09/01/2015 12:04, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
2015-01-09 10:35 GMT+00:00 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 09/01/2015 11:27, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
As this platform can do multiply/divide using 128 bit precision use
these instruction to implement it.
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/qemu-common.h
On 09/01/2015 11:27, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/qemu-common.h b/include/qemu-common.h
index f862214..5366220 100644
---
2015-01-09 10:35 GMT+00:00 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 09/01/2015 11:27, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/qemu-common.h
On 09/01/2015 12:04, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
2015-01-09 10:35 GMT+00:00 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com:
On 09/01/2015 11:27, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio frediano.zig...@huawei.com
---
include/qemu-common.h | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
On 9 January 2015 at 11:24, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/01/2015 12:04, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
I think that I'll write two patches. One implementing using the int128
as you suggested (which is much easier to read that current one and
assembly ones) that another for x86_64