From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38914)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1VKCUm-00066s-EY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:24:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1VKCUe-0005yT-1I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:24:04 -0400
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]:42595)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1VKCUd-0005yL-SP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:23:55 -0400
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id wm4so247004obc.30
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <523214C7.4090303@twiddle.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:23:51 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1379013193-20691-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
In-Reply-To: <1379013193-20691-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Add and use bit rotate functions
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: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 09/12/2013 12:13 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> The first patch was already sent to qemu-devel and is only included
> here because patch 3 is based on it. Only patch 1 is needed for qemu-stable.
> 
> It looks like shift values of 0 or 32/64 work as expected because
> the compiler "knows" the pattern used to implement the rotate operation,
> so the code does not need special handling of some shift values.

Thinking about this closer, the only two behaviors I know of for
x >> n, n >= w, w = width of x, are: shift modulo w, or zero.

Both cases work for this usage:

   x << 0 | x >> 32
   = x | (x >> 0)	modulo
   = x | x
   = x

   = x | 0		zero
   = x

AFAIK we never actually observe missile launch as a side effect
of an out of range shift.  And with that in mind, I think the
existing implementation of rotate is fine.


r~