[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc
From: |
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade |
Subject: |
Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings] |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:43:12 -0300 |
User-agent: |
SquirrelMail/1.4.19 |
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
Sorry to replying to myself.
> Hi again,
>
> Now I think I got a good solution for ld*f/st*d and ld*d/st*f. It
> requires implementing jit_extr_f_d and jit_extr_d_f. Doing it implicitly
> would be a bad idea IMO as one may actually work only with single
> precision floats, and having lightning implicitly upgrading them
> would be bad...
>
> I also changed a bit fp-common.h to define the jit_extr_f_d and
> jit_extr_d_f fallback for i386 (using i387) where values are
> already double precision.
This is not required. I thought it would be, for i386, because the
test case would not compile in x86_64 if they were not defined, what
was a temporary condition.
> Well, I needed some net browsing, but got most of the information
> from Wikipedia.
>
> The good thing was that all bits were already inplace, was only
> needing to define the proper macros. Also, note that jit_extr_d_f
> requires SSE2 or newer, but jit_extr_f_d is plain SSE.
Also wrong, jit_extr_f_d needs SSE2. I was with other opcode in
my head, that I implemented but reverted, because it both, did not
do what I wanted and was not required. Was thinking of one of the
unpack opcodes, based on objdump -d -S output from a small C test
program, and checking what gcc generated...
> Now the remaining x86_64 problem is sign extending 64 bit values,
> (I will try to figure out how to correct it later, should be easier
> than the floats solution) so, if #define'ing sign_extend to 0, it
> will pass all tests.
>
> Thanks,
> Paulo
Paulo
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/06
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/10
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/10
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/10
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/10
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings],
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <=
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/10
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/11
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/15
- Re: [Lightning] Re: Update on testcase [was: sse instructions and gcc warnings], Paulo César Pereira de Andrade, 2010/08/15