From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34971)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jakub@jermar.eu>) id 1Qcehx-0000eF-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:28:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jakub@jermar.eu>) id 1Qcehv-0001dp-Ds
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:28:37 -0400
Received: from mx2.avast.com ([91.213.143.6]:59858)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <jakub@jermar.eu>) id 1Qcehu-0001dh-Qi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:28:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4E0DD990.8070708@jermar.eu>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:28:32 +0200
From: Jakub Jermar <jakub@jermar.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E0CE6A7.10901@jermar.eu>	<CACXAS8DixKjzQxrjDGwj-xzs9ZxN=O9P=sqN5d9Htx7PNngtNA@mail.gmail.com>	<4E0D9527.7010106@jermar.eu>	<CACXAS8B8E=z0w9fTzO_ZGzh91V5iGFiw_Hb5E=joip1D0=f9=g@mail.gmail.com>	<4E0DC450.4000700@jermar.eu>	<4E0DD58C.2070001@jermar.eu>
	<BANLkTi=f1tbZSx=tp9OUAOML+mFCWXmW2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=f1tbZSx=tp9OUAOML+mFCWXmW2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [HelenOS-devel] [sparc64] Miscomputed minimum of a
 group of numbers in sparc64 emulation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>
Cc: HelenOS development mailing list <helenos-devel@lists.modry.cz>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 1.7.2011 16:24, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Jakub Jermar <jakub@jermar.eu> wrote:
> [...]
>> Actually, the testcase can be further reduced into:
>>
>> .global _start
>>
>> .text
>>
>> .space 0x20
>>
>> _start:
>>        set 110393, %i1
>>        set 0x40, %i2
>>
>>        cmp  %i1, %i2
>>        udivx  %g0, 1, %g0
>>        movgu  %xcc, %i2, %i1
>>        cmp  %i1, 512
>>        bgu  %xcc, 0f
>>        nop
>>
>> succ:
>>        ta 0
>>
>> fail:
>> 0:
>>        ta 1
>>
>> The presence of the `udivx` instruction seems to be essential. Even
>> though it has no effect on the computation, removing it will make the
>> testcase non-reproducible.
> 
> Could you try to replace udivx with sdivx?  It looks wrong too.

Yeah, `sdivx` behaves the same wrt. the testcase.

Jakub