From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41728)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tommusta@gmail.com>) id 1VqRaN-0001WI-ND
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:59:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tommusta@gmail.com>) id 1VqRaD-00026M-14
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:59:07 -0500
Message-ID: <52A7565B.50704@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:58:51 -0600
From: Tom Musta <tommusta@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1386604035-2507-1-git-send-email-tommusta@gmail.com>
	<1386604035-2507-6-git-send-email-tommusta@gmail.com>
	<52A65FAA.1070403@twiddle.net>
In-Reply-To: <52A65FAA.1070403@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/18] target-ppc: Add ISA 2.06 divwe[u][o]
 Instructions
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>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org

On 12/9/2013 6:26 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:

>> +        tcg_gen_shli_i64(ra, cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)], 32);                   \
>> +        /* check for MIN div -1 */                                            \
>> +        int l3 = gen_new_label();                                             \
>> +        tcg_gen_brcondi_i64(TCG_COND_NE, rb, -1l, l3);                        \
>> +        tcg_gen_brcondi_i64(TCG_COND_EQ, ra, INT64_MIN, lbl_ov);              \
> 
> The second test can never be true, since ra has 32 zero bits.
> Thus the first test is also pointless.

Hmm.  Consider the case where GPR[RA] = 0xUUUUUUUU_80000000 (U=don't care) and
GPR[RB] = 0xUUUUUUUU_FFFFFFFF.  Without these checks, I do not believe overflow
will be properly detected.

> 
>> +    gen_set_label(lbl_ov); /* overflow handling */                            \
>> +                                                                              \
>> +    if (signed) {                                                             \
>> +        tcg_gen_sari_i64(cpu_gpr[rD(ctx->opcode)], ra, 63);                   \
>> +    } else {                                                                  \
>> +        tcg_gen_movi_i64(cpu_gpr[rD(ctx->opcode)], 0);                        \
>> +    }                                                                         \
> 
> Divide by zero from the signed case reads an uninitialized ra here.  While it's
> true that the result is undefined, I don't think we want to expose
> uninitialized reads to the TCG optimizer.
> 
> Although... what is that sari for anyway?  The result is undefined in the
> non-div-by-zero overflow case as well.  We might as well use 0, or even
> 0xdeadbeef, all the time, no?

I don't disagree with the comment.  I was being consistent with existing code for
divw/divd.  I suspect whomever wrote this was trying to match the hardware's
implementation.  But 0 is certainly a perfectly good undefined value and would
simplify the code.