From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35761) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3KNv-0005Nr-W0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:50:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3KNv-0000o9-34 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:50:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x344.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::344]:44176) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3KNu-0000n6-Mk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:50:27 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-x344.google.com with SMTP id g1so3771995otj.11 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 05:50:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1551978650-23207-1-git-send-email-mateja.marjanovic@rt-rk.com> In-Reply-To: From: Peter Maydell Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:50:13 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/mips: Fix minor bug in FPU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aleksandar Markovic Cc: Mateja Marjanovic , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "aurelien@aurel32.net" , Aleksandar Rikalo , "alex.bennee@linaro.org" On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 11:52, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > From: Mateja Marjanovic > > Subject: [PATCH] target/mips: Fix minor bug in FPU > > > > Wrong type of NaN was generated by maddf and msubf insturctions > > when the arguments were inf, zero, nan or zero, inf, nan > > respectively. > > I did the applicable tests on both pre-NaN2008 and NaN2008 MIPS hardware, > and compared results with QEMu emulations. The underlying reason for this > patch is correct, but, as Alex also pointed out, it needs some improvements. > However, the softfreeze being so close, I am going to amend the patch while > creating the pull request. No respin needed. All in all: Since this is a bug fix, there is no requirement that it goes in before softfreeze, FWIW -- pretty much any bug fix is OK for rc1, and a focused bugfix like this one that doesn't affect other guest architectures would be ok in rc2 as well. thanks -- PMM