From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NeW7S-0008Og-BC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:05:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52771 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NeW7S-0008OX-0W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:05:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NeW7R-0007dQ-4c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:05:49 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f176.google.com ([209.85.222.176]:37095) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NeW7Q-0007cq-LC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:05:48 -0500 Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so5284837pzk.18 for ; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:05:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100208114713.GA19863@afflict.kos.to> References: <1265385151-11024-1-git-send-email-riku.voipio@iki.fi> <1265385151-11024-5-git-send-email-riku.voipio@iki.fi> <761ea48b1002070454j365537an16ef9a767ab8c199@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b1002070502yaf00e06x9630b3fea7e5c106@mail.gmail.com> <20100208114713.GA19863@afflict.kos.to> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:05:46 +0100 Message-ID: <761ea48b1002080805t695f0b73ofdb8828d5da4e224@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] target-arm: neon fix From: Laurent Desnogues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Riku Voipio , Juha.Riihimaki@nokia.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:02:31PM +0100, Laurent Desnogues wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Laurent Desnogues >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Riku Voipio wrote= : >> >> From: Juha Riihim=E4ki > >> >> add an extra check in "two registers and a shift" to ensure element >> >> size decoding logic cannot fail. > >> > I think there's a patch ordering problem that makes >> > the comment and the change not agree :-) > > Sorry, apparently messed up while rebasing. > >> BTW I don't think adding the check for size is needed >> here. =A0The encoding at that point looks like this: > >> =A03322222222221111111111 >> =A010987654321098765432109876543210 >> =A01111001_1___1______________1____ >> =A01111001_1__1_______________1____ >> =A01111001_1_1________________1____ > >> so it will stop for size =3D=3D 0 given that bit 19 will have to >> be set. > > Juha agrees so we'll drop this patch (or more precisely get the actual ch= ange > out of the previous patch..) Do you intend to resend the patch 3 of this set or should it be reviewed as is? Thanks, Laurent