From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FZVBR-00009s-PE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:05 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FZVBP-00007N-NC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:04 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZVBP-000073-H8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:03 -0400
Received: from [66.93.172.17] (helo=nevyn.them.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32)
	(Exim 4.52) id 1FZVEZ-00083u-D8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:50:19 -0400
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1FZVBN-00084Z-Mi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:01 -0400
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:01 -0400
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix overflow conditions for MIPS add
	/	subtract
Message-ID: <20060428154701.GA30778@nevyn.them.org>
References: <443E9D2F.5050807@mail.berlios.de>
	<20060428132818.GA27384@nevyn.them.org>
	<44522BFB.8030109@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44522BFB.8030109@gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 04:51:39PM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >I haven't tested the patched qemu, but I did test the expressions
> >themselves in standalone code, and they definitely do not detect
> >overflow.
> 
> Maybe you can test Ralf's alternative proposal
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-02/msg00154.html
> 
> as well?

Using 64-bit math for this would be awful for performance.  My original
checks were wrong; we just need to use a correct fix...  Lightly
tested, but I think this is right for add:

-    if ((T0 >> 31) ^ (T1 >> 31) ^ (tmp >> 31)) {
+    if (~(T0 ^ T1) & (T0 ^ tmp) & 0x80000000) {

And this for sub:

-    if (!((T0 >> 31) ^ (T1 >> 31) ^ (tmp >> 31))) {
+    if ((T0 ^ T1) & (T0 ^ tmp) & 0x80000000) {


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery