From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FToYx-0002qD-DJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:15:51 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FToYu-0002pN-Tg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:15:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FToYu-0002pE-3g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [81.103.221.47] (helo=mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FToe5-0003gk-SU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:21:10 -0400 From: Julian Seward Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Emulation differences, qemu-system-x86_64 vs Athlon64 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:15:27 +0100 References: <200604121308.00848.jseward@acm.org> <443D7C9D.8010401@bellard.org> In-Reply-To: <443D7C9D.8010401@bellard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604130015.27832.jseward@acm.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > I guess the problem comes from the usage of lrintl() on x86_64 in > fpu/softfloat-native.c, but I cannot test it yet. It might be that you have to pass in an extra value into those float -> int conversion routines, which describes what to do if the conversion is going to overflow. That's because the behaviour is different depending on the guest architecture. x86/amd64 always give 0x8000...., whereas ppc gives either 0x8000... or 0x7FFF.... depending on the sign of the argument (IIRC). J