From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTnfy-0007HA-BP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:19:02 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FTnfx-0007G5-K3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:19:01 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTnfx-0007Fv-FP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:19:01 -0400
Received: from [84.96.92.56] (helo=smTp.neuf.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FTnl8-0006Ed-RE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:24:22 -0400
Received: from [84.102.211.235] by sp604003mt.gpm.neuf.ld
	(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-5.05 (built Feb 16 2006))
	with ESMTP id <0IXM00G5IRBO43U0@sp604003mt.gpm.neuf.ld> for
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:19:00 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:18:05 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Emulation differences, qemu-system-x86_64 vs Athlon64
In-reply-to: <200604121308.00848.jseward@acm.org>
Message-id: <443D7C9D.8010401@bellard.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <200604121308.00848.jseward@acm.org>
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

Julian Seward wrote:
> Recently I've been playing with CVS qemu-system (softmmu) on amd64
> and had some stability problems.  I decided to run Valgrind's amd64
> instruction-set tests (derived from qemu's) to see if they picked up
> anything.  Resulting diffs are attached.
> 
> There are a bunch of differences for the C flag for rotates
> (rol/ror) by multiples of the word size.  I don't think these
> are significant, but who knows.

This is a bug in QEMU. From the manuals, the C flag must be updated even 
if the resulting shift is zero. I just modified the QEMU tests to catch 
this problem (it is not x86_64 specific).

> Perhaps more worryingly are the 20 or so lines at the bottom
> of the diff.  These I believe are for double-to-int/short
> conversions for a value which is out of range for an int/short;
> the hardware produces 0x80000000/0x8000 respectively, which is
> the "integer indefinite"; QEMU produces zero.  I can imagine some
> obscure routine somewhere checking for integer indefinite after
> conversion and being confused as a result.

I guess the problem comes from the usage of lrintl() on x86_64 in 
fpu/softfloat-native.c, but I cannot test it yet.

Fabrice.