From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FGihq-0002bZ-9N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:22:54 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FGihm-0002Qe-LJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:22:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGihm-0002QL-BU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:22:50 -0500
Received: from [64.233.182.201] (helo=nproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FGikS-0001Dc-O6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:25:36 -0500
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l23so8771nfc
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:22:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5b5833aa0603071222w7d9ee82k1986bbe6891f466b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:22:48 -0400
From: "Anderson Lizardo" <anderson.lizardo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu regression 0.7.2 -> 0.8.0 (ARM user emulation)
In-Reply-To: <200603061503.18426.uli@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5b5833aa0603011418j33a74eb4ob9bde3906cad8790@mail.gmail.com>
	<200603061503.18426.uli@suse.de>
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

On 3/6/06, Ulrich Hecht <uli@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 23:18, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> > I was having some issues with the latest qemu (ARM user emulation),
> > which I tracked down to the following reduced test case:
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > int main(void)
> > {
> >         float a, b;
> >         a =3D 0.1f;
> >         b =3D 0.8f;
> >         printf("a < b: %d\n", (a < b));
> >         return 0;
> > }
>
> This fails because of a bug in the glue code between NWFPE and QEMU. (It
> relies on a specific layout of the CPUARMState structure.)
>
> Fix attached.

This patch seems to fix the specific problem I was having. Just
waiting to see it on CVS...

Thanks!
--
Anderson Lizardo
Embedded Linux Lab - 10LE
Nokia Institute of Technology - INdT
Manaus - Brazil