From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BUlhj-00029k-LN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 08:15:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BUlhg-00027F-5g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 08:15:45 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BUlhf-00026R-Lb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 08:15:43 -0400
Received: from [81.209.184.159] (helo=dd2718.kasserver.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BUlhJ-0005op-Ds
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 08:15:21 -0400
Message-ID: <40BB21D5.2070409@fabianowski.de>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 14:15:17 +0200
From: Bartosz Fabianowski <bartosz@fabianowski.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Running QEMU on FreeBSD
References: <1085865953.93476.3.camel@pcgem.rdg.cyberkinetica.com>	<1085966664.347.8.camel@pcgem.rdg.cyberkinetica.com>	<40BA8D68.3070204@fabianowski.de>
	<200405301859.03523.kyle@silverbeach.net>
In-Reply-To: <200405301859.03523.kyle@silverbeach.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: kyle@silverbeach.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> You're either up very, very late, or very early :-)

Very late :).

> I didn't see a patch attached to this email.  Did my mailer drop it?

I was referring to Antony's latest patch. It wasn't quite a patch, in 
fact, just the following idea:

Replace the rintl() function in target-i386/op.c with the following:

CPU86_LDouble rintl(CPU86_LDouble __x) {
   register CPU86_LDouble __result;
   __asm __volatile__ ("frndint" : "=t" (__result) : "0" (__x));
   return __result;
}

So what I meant to say is that with this change, the FPU stops reporting 
a NaN when it obviously shouldn't, but starts doing weird rounding 
again. Sorry if my late-night mail wasn't quite clear.

- Bartosz