[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions

2007-03-19 Thread J. Mayer
Some functions are missing from the softfloat API. Those are: float32 uint32_to_float32( unsigned int STATUS_PARAM); float64 uint64_to_float64( uint64_t v STATUS_PARAM); unsigned int float32_to_uint32( float32 a STATUS_PARAM); unsigned int float32_to_uint32_round_to_zero( float32 a STATUS_PARAM);

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions

2007-03-19 Thread Julian Seward
Note that float64_to_uint64 functions are not correct, as they won't return results between INT64_MAX and UINT64_MAX. Hope someone may know the proper solution for this. How about this? J uint64_t float64_to_uint64 (float64 a STATUS_PARAM) { uint64_t res; int64_t v; if

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions

2007-03-19 Thread J. Mayer
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 20:37 +, Julian Seward wrote: Note that float64_to_uint64 functions are not correct, as they won't return results between INT64_MAX and UINT64_MAX. Hope someone may know the proper solution for this. How about this? Yes, it seems to be the correct way, but

[Fwd: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions]

2007-03-19 Thread J. Mayer
Repost: looks like this message never reached the list Forwarded Message From: J. Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Julian Seward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:10:14 +0100

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions

2007-03-19 Thread Julian Seward
Thinking about this more, you ask is this correct, but that is only meaningful if you say what the specification is. Correct relative to what? Yes, it seems to be the correct way, but thinking more about the problem, it appeared to me that the implementation could be even easier than yours.

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] softfloat missing functions

2007-03-19 Thread J. Mayer
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 22:53 +, Julian Seward wrote: Thinking about this more, you ask is this correct, but that is only meaningful if you say what the specification is. Correct relative to what? Yes, it seems to be the correct way, but thinking more about the problem, it appeared to