This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] soft-fp: Add the lack of implementation for 128 bit
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: Zong Li <zong at andestech dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:58:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] soft-fp: Add the lack of implementation for 128 bit
Zong Li <zong@andestech.com> writes:
> +#ifndef __FP_FRAC_SUB_8
> +# define __FP_FRAC_SUB_8(r7, r6, r5, r4, r3, r2, r1, r0, \
. . . .
> + r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c2; \
> + __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c3 |= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c2 && (y2 == x2); \
> + r3 = x3 - y3; \
> + __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c4 = r3 > x3; \
> + r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c3; \
r2 ? Not r3? There are three other cases that look like cut-n-paste
without a tweak...
> + r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c4; \
> + r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c5; \
> + r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c6; \
Should these be r4, r5, r6, and r7 ?
Do we know if this code ever gets tested with our testsuite? Since
these are new macros, I'd expect a new test to go with them...