From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59652) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elbZ1-00075o-7w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:28:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elbYz-0008BC-W5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:28:07 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]:41748) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1elbYz-0008Ab-SE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:28:05 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t135so1321921oif.8 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 06:28:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180208173157.24705-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> References: <20180208173157.24705-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:27:44 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v2 00/32] Add ARMv8.2 half-precision functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= Cc: qemu-arm , QEMU Developers On 8 February 2018 at 17:31, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrot= e: > Hi, > > Some of this was posted before as part of the various partial patch > series when we first started messing around with FP16 in softfloat. > This series is now just the ARM bits and expects to have the V4 > softfloat patches as a prerequisite: > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg01330.html > > Alternatively you can grab the full tree from: > > https://github.com/stsquad/qemu/tree/arm-fp16-v2 > > I've tested with the following RISU test binaries: > > http://people.linaro.org/~alex.bennee/testcases/arm64.risu/testcases.ar= mv8.2_hp.tar.xz > > And of course I ran the original RISU tests with: > > -cpu any,fp16=3Doff > > But I guess we really just need to carefully regenerate the testcases > to not include UNDEF's which get added with future revisions of the > specification. > > Anyway please review. I see Richard's reviewed this one, so I just had the one comment about feature flag naming. Could you also fix the checkpatch long-lines warnings and look at whatever the problem that caused patchew build failures is, please? thanks -- PMM