On 10/24/2013 5:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Can't you use the min and max softfloat functions? Those are
there specifically because the corner cases mean you can't
implement them using the comparisons. (For instance for
the example you quote of max(-0.0, +0.0) they return +0.0
as you require.)
On 25 October 2013 14:52, Tom Musta tommu...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/2013 5:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Can't you use the min and max softfloat functions? Those are
there specifically because the corner cases mean you can't
implement them using the comparisons. (For instance for
the
This patch adds the VSX floating point maximum and minimum
instructions:
- xsmaxdp, xvmaxdp, xvmaxsp
- xsmindp, xvmindp, xvminsp
Because of the Power ISA definitions of maximum and minimum
on various boundary cases, the standard softfloat comparison
routines (e.g. float64_lt) do not work as
On 10/24/2013 09:26 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
Because of the Power ISA definitions of maximum and minimum
on various boundary cases, the standard softfloat comparison
routines (e.g. float64_lt) do not work as well as one might
think. Therefore specific routines for comparing 64 and 32
bit
On 10/24/2013 3:45 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/24/2013 09:26 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
Because of the Power ISA definitions of maximum and minimum
on various boundary cases, the standard softfloat comparison
routines (e.g. float64_lt) do not work as well as one might
think. Therefore
On 10/24/2013 02:07 PM, Tom Musta wrote:
See, for example, table 58 (Actions for xsmaxdp) on p. 369 of the
V2.06 ISA.
Bah, I typoed my search in the document and looked at the Altivec insn, which
is only one letter different, and doesn't have the same guarantees.
Reviewed-by: Richard
On 24 October 2013 17:26, Tom Musta tommu...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds the VSX floating point maximum and minimum
instructions:
- xsmaxdp, xvmaxdp, xvmaxsp
- xsmindp, xvmindp, xvminsp
Because of the Power ISA definitions of maximum and minimum
on various boundary cases, the
