From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41440)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tommusta@gmail.com>) id 1XJSxh-00065A-9w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:51:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tommusta@gmail.com>) id 1XJSxY-0000hy-93
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:51:25 -0400
Message-ID: <53F25925.9010804@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:51:01 -0500
From: Tom Musta <tommusta@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1407785009-6538-1-git-send-email-tommusta@gmail.com>
	<1407785009-6538-4-git-send-email-tommusta@gmail.com>
	<53EE6825.5040706@twiddle.net>
In-Reply-To: <53EE6825.5040706@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/8] target-ppc: Bug Fix: rlwimi
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, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org
Cc: agraf@suse.de

On 8/15/2014 3:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 09:23 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
>> Also fix the special case of MB=31 and ME=0 to copy the entire contents
>> of the source GPR.
> 
> Err, that's not what you did.
> 
>>      if (likely(sh == 0 && mb == 0 && me == 31)) {
>> +#if defined(TARGET_PPC64)
>> +        tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)], cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)]);
>> +#else
>>          tcg_gen_ext32u_tl(cpu_gpr[rA(ctx->opcode)], cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)]);
>> +#endif
> 
> This is the reverse condition.  Which, true enough, should not be implemented
> with ext32u for PPC64.  But a MOV isn't right either, it is
> 
>   deposit(ra, rs, 0, 32)
> 
> Which does point out that we should probably implement anything MB <= ME and SH
> == 31 - ME with the deposit opcode.
> 
> 
> r~
> 

Richard:

Good catch.  I found a bug in my test generator ... rlwimi is unusual in that the
"RA" register is both a source and a target.  A fix is forthcoming.

Thanks also for your other comments.  Unlike this one, I believe they are optimizations.
I will investigate and potentially publish some additional changes.  Alex has already
taken this series into his ppc-next, so the new patches will be relative to these.