From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GZYbP-0001wZ-7h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:58:23 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GZYbM-0001qR-LX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:58:22 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZYbM-0001qE-GT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:58:20 -0400
Received: from [66.249.82.227] (helo=wx-out-0506.google.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GZYkX-0004lH-DF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:07:49 -0400
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id r21so2220521wxc
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ad73a0610161258n79c16499r1aa53ab74561931@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:58:18 -0200
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Braga?=" <meianoite@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH stfiwx implementation - Problem with casting
In-Reply-To: <45334184.8000406@telargo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <452B639A.3090304@telargo.com> <452CA5E3.5040909@telargo.com>
	<45334184.8000406@telargo.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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/16/06, Tom Marn <tom.marn@telargo.com> wrote:
> cast test 1 - float: 85.745110 [0x42ab7d7f] -> integer: 85 [0x00000055]
> cast test 2 - float: 85.745110 [0x42ab7d7f] -> integer: 57005 [0x0000dead] <-- 85 is correct

Am I the only one who found this result EXTREMELY amusing? :D