From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1InDbY-0005Le-RI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:27:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1InDbV-0005Jt-PW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:27:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InDbV-0005Jn-MG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:27:29 -0400 Received: from honiara.magic.fr ([195.154.193.36]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1InDbU-0006Sk-Po for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:27:29 -0400 From: Jocelyn Mayer In-Reply-To: <200710311237.22174.jseward@acm.org> References: <200710311237.22174.jseward@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:27:23 +0100 Message-Id: <1193837243.24629.22.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: emu errors for creqv,crnand,crnor,crorc ? Reply-To: l_indien@magic.fr, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Julian Seward Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:37 +0100, Julian Seward wrote: > Hi Jocelyn Hi, > I ran valgrind's ppc32 insn set tests and got the impression that > the above insns are not correctly implemented. It seems like 7 bits > of CR are set to 1 and one is set to 0, when it should be the other > way around. Below is a simple test case. On QEMU it prints > > result is 000fc000 > > and on a real 7447 > > result is 00004000 > > Similar behaviour for creqv, crnand, crnor. But cror, crand, crxor work > OK. So maybe it is related to the inverted-result-sense? But the strange > thing is, ~0xFC != 0x04. Thanks for testing and for the report ! I have to admit I never did extensive test on CR operations the same way I did for arithmetic and logical ones. What is strange is that 0xFC + 0x04... I will have to check all the CR ops, I guess... I also got a 74xx CPU at home, then I will try to compare running step-by-step, if needed. I'll tell you when I'll find the bug... -- Jocelyn Mayer