From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IljZd-00044d-MG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:11:25 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IljZc-00044D-A6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:11:25 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IljZc-00044A-4v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:11:24 -0400
Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net ([193.7.176.67])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1IljZb-0005WW-PJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:11:23 -0400
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:11:17 +0100
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu host-utils.c
Message-ID: <20071027111116.GG29176@networkno.de>
References: <E1IkT5K-0007xn-ES@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<471F1C7F.8060003@bellard.org> <1193222136.16781.229.camel@rapid>
	<20071024173726.GC6666@networkno.de>
	<f43fc5580710262345u1d158f4eh9c783fea57693523@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580710262345u1d158f4eh9c783fea57693523@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> wrote:
> > - SPARC and Alpha look like they will break on 32bit hosts, they should
> >   do multiplications the same way as the other 64bit targets.
> 
> I can't see how Sparc would break: smul and umul perform 32x32->64 bit
> multiplications, Sparc64 mulx does 64x64->64 bit multiplications.
> There is no overflow detection.

Ah, then it is ok. Thanks for the explanation.


Thiemo