From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 69150 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2017 09:19:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 69141 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2017 09:19:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=asleep, 2269, H*f:sk:BcvvR5e, non-full X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:19:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43AF731B304; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.33.32.8] ([10.33.32.8]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v099JQAP009868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 04:19:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64 sim uzp1/uzp2 bug fix To: Jim Wilson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: From: Nick Clifton Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, > The uzp1/uzp2 implementation has a number of problems I had to > rewrite it. It doesn't get the shifting/masking right. it gets > input1 and input2 wrong. It checks one bit instead of two for the > size field. It doesn't fail for the non-full size==3 (1d) case which > should be an unallocated instruction. I apologise - I must have been asleep when I wrote that code. > The new testcase passes with the patch, and fails without. The GCC C > testsuite failures go from 2269 to 2227 (-42). Excellent - patch approved - please apply. Cheers Nick