On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 22:45:51 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 April 2018 at 22:27, Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> wrote:
> > BTW I just checked with -t host on an IBM Power8, and we get
> > the same 1049 flag errors we get with -t soft plus two additional ones:
> >
> > +A 0xffb00000, expected: 0x7fa00000, returned: 0x7fa00000, \
> > expected exceptions: i, returned: none
> > +error: flags mismatch for input @ ibm/Basic-Types-Inputs.fptest:382:
> > +b32A =0 S -> S i
>
> That's Abs of an SNaN; the test expects Invalid, which is wrong,
> because IEEE754 says absolute-value is a "quiet-computational
> operation" that never signals an exception.
>
> What's odd is that we don't report that error for the softfloat
> implementation! I also don't understand why the expected value
> isn't just the input value with the sign bit flipped.
With -t soft we don't handle "abs" and we don't get the error -- we get
a "not handled" instead.
Is there a function that we could use for abs? The only ones I've seen
are floatX_abs() which mask out the sign bit and do nothing else.
> > (...)
> > +cff 0xffb00000, expected: 0x7ff8000000000000, returned:
> > 0x7ff4000000000000, \
> > expected exceptions: i, returned: none
> > +error: flags mismatch for input @ ibm/Basic-Types-Inputs.fptest:26170:
> > +b32b64cff =0 S -> Q i
>
> SNaN conversion from 32 bit to 64 bit. Here I agree
> with the test -- we should quieten the NaN and raise
> Invalid -- which implies that the hardware is wrong ?!?
This passes on an Intel host, and fails on both Power7 and 8 hosts I have
access to. I don't have the Power ISA spec in front of me, but I hope
there's something about this specified in it.
E.
