qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] target/ppc: Bugfix fadd/fsub result with OE/UE set


From: Richard Henderson
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] target/ppc: Bugfix fadd/fsub result with OE/UE set
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:18:54 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0

On 8/3/22 05:22, Lucas Mateus Castro(alqotel) wrote:
From: "Lucas Mateus Castro (alqotel)" <lucas.araujo@eldorado.org.br>

As mentioned in the functions float_overflow_excp and
float_underflow_excp, the result should be adjusted as mentioned in the
ISA (subtracted 192/1536 from the exponent of the intermediate result if
an overflow occurs with OE set and added 192/1536 to the exponent of the
intermediate result if an underflow occurs with UE set), but at those
functions the result has already been rounded so it is not possible to
add/subtract from the intermediate result anymore.
This patch creates a new function that receives the value that should be
subtracted/added from the exponent if an overflow/underflow happens, to
not leave some arbitrary numbers from the PowerISA in the middle of the
FPU code. If these numbers are 0 the new functions just call the old
ones.

I used 2 values here for overflow and underflow, maybe it'd be better to
just use the same ones, any thoughts?

Signed-off-by: Lucas Mateus Castro (alqotel) <lucas.araujo@eldorado.org.br>
---
An alternative I've thought was to always return the value adjusted if a
overflow or underflow occurs and in float_underflow_excp and
float_overflow_excp adjust it to inf/den/0 if OE/UE is 0, but I didn't
saw many advantages to that approach.
---
  fpu/softfloat.c         | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  include/fpu/softfloat.h |  2 ++
  target/ppc/fpu_helper.c | 10 ++++--
  3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fpu/softfloat.c b/fpu/softfloat.c
index 4a871ef2a1..a407129dcb 100644
--- a/fpu/softfloat.c
+++ b/fpu/softfloat.c
@@ -268,6 +268,8 @@ typedef bool (*f64_check_fn)(union_float64 a, union_float64 
b);
typedef float32 (*soft_f32_op2_fn)(float32 a, float32 b, float_status *s);
  typedef float64 (*soft_f64_op2_fn)(float64 a, float64 b, float_status *s);
+typedef float64 (*soft_f64_op2_int2_fn)(float64 a, float64 b, int c, int d,
+                                        float_status *s);
  typedef float   (*hard_f32_op2_fn)(float a, float b);
  typedef double  (*hard_f64_op2_fn)(double a, double b);
@@ -401,6 +403,19 @@ float64_gen2(float64 xa, float64 xb, float_status *s,
      return soft(ua.s, ub.s, s);
  }
+static inline float64
+float64_gen2_excp(float64 xa, float64 xb, int xc, int xd, float_status *s,
+                  hard_f64_op2_fn hard, soft_f64_op2_fn soft,
+                  soft_f64_op2_int2_fn soft_excp, f64_check_fn pre,
+                  f64_check_fn post)
+{
+    if (xc || xd) {
+        return soft_excp(xa, xb, xc, xd, s);
+    } else {
+        return float64_gen2(xa, xb, s, hard, soft, pre, post);
+    }
+}
+
  /*
   * Classify a floating point number. Everything above float_class_qnan
   * is a NaN so cls >= float_class_qnan is any NaN.
@@ -1929,6 +1944,39 @@ static double hard_f64_sub(double a, double b)
      return a - b;
  }
+static float64 QEMU_SOFTFLOAT_ATTR
+soft_f64_addsub_excp_en(float64 a, float64 b, int oe_sub, int ue_sum,
+                        float_status *status, bool subtract)
+{
+    FloatParts64 pa, pb, *pr;
+
+    float64_unpack_canonical(&pa, a, status);
+    float64_unpack_canonical(&pb, b, status);
+    pr = parts_addsub(&pa, &pb, status, subtract);
+
+    if (unlikely(oe_sub && (pr->exp > 1023))) {
+        pr->exp -= oe_sub;
+        float_raise(float_flag_overflow, status);
+    } else if (unlikely(ue_sum && (pr->exp < -1022))) {
+        pr->exp += ue_sum;
+        float_raise(float_flag_underflow, status);
+    }
+
+    return float64_round_pack_canonical(pr, status);

This is incorrect, because the exponent is not fixed until the middle of 
round_pack_canonical.

I think you should not add new functions like this, with new parameters, but instead add fields to float_status, which would then be checked at the places currently setting underflow and overflow.


r~



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]