From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36696)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Q9p7R-0007Dm-OK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:43:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Q9m7G-0005W7-1T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:31:24 -0400
Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.212.45]:63821)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Q9m7F-0005UN-Sp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:31:21 -0400
Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so42418vws.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110412213215.GA14070@volta.aurel32.net>
References: <1302535928-15901-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org>
	<20110412213215.GA14070@volta.aurel32.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:31:20 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Jxn2fSQ1uwh579NPn=p-5=9nq6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Don't overflow when
 calculating value for signed VABAL
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, patches@linaro.org

On 12 April 2011 22:32, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:

>> @@ -1524,12 +1528,12 @@ uint64_t HELPER(neon_abdl_u16)(uint32_t a, uint3=
2_t b)
>> =C2=A0{
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0uint64_t tmp;
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0uint64_t result;
>> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(result, a, b, uint8_t);
>> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 8, b >> 8, uint8_t);
>> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(result, a, b, uint8_t, uint32_t);
>> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 8, b >> 8, uint8_t, uint32_t);
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0result |=3D tmp << 16;
>> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 16, b >> 16, uint8_t);
>> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 16, b >> 16, uint8_t, uint32_t);
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0result |=3D tmp << 32;
>> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 24, b >> 24, uint8_t);
>> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0DO_ABD(tmp, a >> 24, b >> 24, uint8_t, uint32_t);
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0result |=3D tmp << 48;
>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return result;
>> =C2=A0}
>
> Do we really need a 32-bit type for the computation here?

No, anything wider than 8 will do, but my guess was that in
practice 32 bits would be fractionally more efficient than
unnecessarily forcing 16 bit arithmetic. For that matter I
guess we could just say "int" and "unsigned int" since C
guarantees us at least 16 bits there.

-- PMM