On 07/08/2014 12:02 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:12:20AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/08/2014 09:13 AM, Al Viro wrote: >>> Frankly, I suspect that it's better to have qemu-system-alpha behave like >>> the actual hardware does (including "FPCR.DNOD can't be set") and keep the >>> linux-user behaviour as is, for somebody brave and masochistic enough to >>> fight that one. And no, it's nowhere near "just let denorms ride through >>> the normal softfloat code and play a bit with the flags it might raise". >>> And then there's netbsd/alpha and openbsd/alpha, so in theory somebody might >>> want to play with their software completion semantics (not identical to >>> Linux >>> one) for the sake of yet-to-be-written bsd-user alpha support... >> >> You're probably right there. >> >> I've pushed a couple more patches to the branch, split out from your patch >> here. I believe I've got it all, and havn't mucked things up in the process. >> I'll run some tests later today when I've got time. > > Just one thing - 0x1fffffffffffff will make 32bit hosts whine about integer > constant being too large. So will 0x1ffffffffffffful, unfortunately - it > really ought to be ull. >
I did use ull on the branch. r~
