From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39373)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1UpmHq-0006AK-Iw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:20:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1UpmHp-0002xm-MH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:20:58 -0400
Received: from mail-ee0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::22b]:36612)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1UpmHp-0002xi-9K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:20:57 -0400
Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l10so4157114eei.16
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51C37230.2040306@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:20:48 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1371740457-27445-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<51C331E0.6030402@twiddle.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C331E0.6030402@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] int128: optimize
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 20/06/2013 18:46, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
> On 06/20/2013 08:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>  static inline Int128 int128_sub(Int128 a, Int128 b)
>>  {
>> -    return int128_add(a, int128_neg(b));
>> +    uint64_t lo = a.lo - b.lo;
>> +    return (Int128) { lo, (lo < a.lo) + a.hi - b.hi };
> 
> This one isn't right.  Consider { 2, 0 } - { 2, 0 }
> 
>   lo = 2 - 2 = 0;
>   = { 0, (0 < 2) + 0 - 0 }
>   = { 0, 1 }
> 
> I'd be happier with a more traditional
> 
>   (Int128){ a.lo - b.lo, a.hi - b.hi - (a.lo < b.lo) };

Yeah, I wasn't quite sure of this and I was waiting for testcases to
prove me wrong...  To fix it in the style I used you need

   (Int128){ lo, a.hi - b.hi - (lo > a.lo) }

(We have to sum a + ~b + 1.  We have lo = a.lo + ~b.lo + 1, from which
the carry-out is either lo <= a.lo or lo <= ~b.lo, using <= because of
the carry-in.  Then the high part is

       a.hi + ~b.hi       + (lo <= a.lo)
     = a.hi + (-1 - b.hi) + 1 - (lo > a.lo)
     = a.hi - b.hi        - (lo > a.lo)

).  But I'll go with your version, it probably generates better code
too.

Paolo