From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33911 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PdHet-0001dI-Ag
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:31:48 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1PdHes-0001du-0K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:31:47 -0500
Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.126.93]:33109)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1PdHer-0001dj-Q0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:31:45 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:31:42 +0100
From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Message-ID: <20110113073142.GA25117@ohm.aurel32.net>
References: <1294862379-31353-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net>
	<AANLkTimxM2UoeCpwpzhwY+R8ze-DXxDddY9wA_ct_H+-@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimxM2UoeCpwpzhwY+R8ze-DXxDddY9wA_ct_H+-@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] softfloat: fix floatx80_is_{quiet,
	signaling}_nan()
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 03:05:10PM -0600, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 January 2011 13:59, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -494,7 +495,8 @@ int floatx80_is_quiet_nan( floatx80 a )
> >  int floatx80_is_signaling_nan( floatx80 a )
> >  {
> >  #if SNAN_BIT_IS_ONE
> > -    return ( ( a.high & 0x7FFF ) == 0x7FFF ) && (bits64) ( a.low<<1 );
> > +    return ( ( a.high & 0x7FFF ) == 0x7FFF )
> > +        && (LIT64( 0x8000000000000000 ) >= ((bits64) ( a.low<<1 )));
> >  #else
> >     bits64 aLow;
> 
> If a is {0x7ffff,0} (ie +inf) this will return true, which is wrong.
> Do you want "<=" instead?

Correct, I swapped the operands at the last minute to match the other
functions, but without changing the sign.

> Actually, will
>   return ((a.high & 0x7fff) == 0x7fff) && (a.low >= LIT64(0x4000000000000000));
> do? Untested but I think it will do the right thing. I'm not sure

The explicit bit might be one for a NaN, so you should filter it first.

> why this code has those bit64 casts, incidentally, since a.low is
> already a uint64_t.

Don't know either, but as they were already there, I left them.

> Also, maybe we should have a comment somewhere explaining
> why this is different from the other NaN functions (ie that the
> x80 format has an explicit bit and the others don't) ?
> 

Good idea, will do.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net