From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cai2k-0005zj-97 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:05:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cai2g-000855-4q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:05:14 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:59878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cai2f-000842-TE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:05:10 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v16C4ds5034018 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 07:05:08 -0500 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (e28smtp06.in.ibm.com [125.16.236.6]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28db52dvct-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 07:05:08 -0500 Received: from localhost by e28smtp06.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:35:03 +0530 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:34:56 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao Reply-To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1485946146-21639-1-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170203151246.GD12744@in.ibm.com> <20170206085819.GF12744@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20170206120456.GG12744@in.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v0] softfloat: Add float128_to_uint64_round_to_zero() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , David Gibson , Richard Henderson , Nikunj A Dadhania On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:31:49AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 February 2017 at 08:58, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 03:39:16PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 3 February 2017 at 15:12, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >> > As I said above, it is based on float128_to_int64() > >> > >> Ah, right. I think that's probably a bad model to copy because > >> it's a conversion to signed integer, not a conversion to > >> unsigned integer (so the edge cases are different). > > > > I checked the original berkeley implementation and I see that > > float128_to_uint64 implementation there also is based on > > float128_to_int64 implementation with edge cases being different. > > > > To the best of my understanding, the corner cases for unsigned > > int are covered in the above implemenation. Could you please > > take a re-look at this ? > > OK, but that's about 5 times harder to review because I have > to work everything out from scratch rather than being able to > say "yes, this is doing everything the same way that our > existing known-to-be-good other function is doing it". Fair enough. I will come up with a version of float128_to_uint64_round_to_zero() based on the existing float64_to_uint32_round_to_zero(). Regards, Bharata.