From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41424)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1YvWny-0000Dc-UN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 16:10:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1YvWnv-0002w4-NE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 16:10:58 -0400
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]:36496)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1YvWnv-0002vz-IK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 16:10:55 -0400
Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so18303874qkx.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555E3BCB.3060402@twiddle.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 13:10:51 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1432229986-772-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<CAFEAcA-UsgQSmApwyfeE1m1O-z+AUkbKX99jXqjctUbhtxa-qw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-UsgQSmApwyfeE1m1O-z+AUkbKX99jXqjctUbhtxa-qw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v2 00/18] target-alpha fpu improvements
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 05/21/2015 01:08 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 May 2015 at 18:39, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
>> Having fixed the UL vs ULL fiasco in patch 17.
> 
> ...you seem to have changed the implementation too?
> The previous pull used sextract64().

Yes.  This is the same number of insns on x86_64, but doesn't overcommit the
shifter.  I should have mentioned.


r~