Fix extlh instruction on Alpha

(re-sending)

The extlh instruction on Alpha currently doesn't work properly.
It's a combination of a cut/paste bug (16 where it should be 32) as well 
as a "shift by 64" bug.

Below is a patch that fixes the problem.  The previous e-mails on this 
problem have test cases that exhibit the bug.

This patch uses tcg_temp_local_new() at the suggestion of Filip Navara.

Vince

Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <vince@csl.cornell.edu>

On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> 
> (re-sending)
> 
> The extlh instruction on Alpha currently doesn't work properly.
> It's a combination of a cut/paste bug (16 where it should be 32) as well 
> as a "shift by 64" bug.
> 
> Below is a patch that fixes the problem.  The previous e-mails on this 
> problem have test cases that exhibit the bug.
> 
> This patch uses tcg_temp_local_new() at the suggestion of Filip Navara.
> 
> Vince
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vince Weaver <vince@csl.cornell.edu>
> 
> diff --git a/target-alpha/translate.c b/target-alpha/translate.c
> index 1fc5119..4219916 100644
> --- a/target-alpha/translate.c
> +++ b/target-alpha/translate.c
> @@ -526,14 +526,24 @@ static always_inline void gen_ext_h(void (*tcg_gen_ext_i64)(TCGv t0, TCGv t1),
>              else
>                  tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra]);
>          } else {
> +            int l1;
>              TCGv tmp1, tmp2;
> -            tmp1 = tcg_temp_new();
> +            tmp1 = tcg_temp_local_new();
> +            l1 = gen_new_label();
> +
>              tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, cpu_ir[rb], 7);
>              tcg_gen_shli_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 3);
> +
> +            tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra]);
> +            tcg_gen_brcondi_i64(TCG_COND_EQ, tmp1, 0, l1);
> +
>              tmp2 = tcg_const_i64(64);
>              tcg_gen_sub_i64(tmp1, tmp2, tmp1);
>              tcg_temp_free(tmp2);

Given that a test costs a lot (partly due to the fact temp local
variable must be used), I do wonder if doing a AND here wouldn't
be better:
		
               tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 0x3f);

>              tcg_gen_shl_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra], tmp1);
> +
> +            gen_set_label(l1);
> +
>              tcg_temp_free(tmp1);
>          }
>          if (tcg_gen_ext_i64)
> @@ -1320,7 +1330,7 @@ static always_inline int translate_one (DisasContext *ctx, uint32_t insn)
>              break;
>          case 0x6A:
>              /* EXTLH */
> -            gen_ext_h(&tcg_gen_ext16u_i64, ra, rb, rc, islit, lit);
> +            gen_ext_h(&tcg_gen_ext32u_i64, ra, rb, rc, islit, lit);
>              break;
>          case 0x72:
>              /* MSKQH */
> 
> 
>

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:

> >          } else {
> > +            int l1;
> >              TCGv tmp1, tmp2;
> > -            tmp1 = tcg_temp_new();
> > +            tmp1 = tcg_temp_local_new();
> > +            l1 = gen_new_label();
> > +
> >              tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, cpu_ir[rb], 7);
> >              tcg_gen_shli_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 3);
> > +
> > +            tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra]);
> > +            tcg_gen_brcondi_i64(TCG_COND_EQ, tmp1, 0, l1);
> > +
> >              tmp2 = tcg_const_i64(64);
> >              tcg_gen_sub_i64(tmp1, tmp2, tmp1);
> >              tcg_temp_free(tmp2);
> 
> Given that a test costs a lot (partly due to the fact temp local
> variable must be used), I do wonder if doing a AND here wouldn't
> be better:
> 		
>                tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 0x3f);

I'm not sure I follow.

The code is attempting the following:

  tmp1=rb&0x7;
  tmp1=temp1<<3;

  if (tmp1!=0) {
     tmp1=64-tmp1;
     rc=ra<<tmp1;
  }
  else {
     rc=ra;
  }

The problem with the original code is that in the case of tmp1 being 0,
the shift left by 64 would result in 0, instead of the identity.

I tried to avoid the jump but couldn't.  Am I missing something?


> >              tcg_gen_shl_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra], tmp1);
> > +
> > +            gen_set_label(l1);
> > +

Vince

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:45:20PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> 
> > >          } else {
> > > +            int l1;
> > >              TCGv tmp1, tmp2;
> > > -            tmp1 = tcg_temp_new();
> > > +            tmp1 = tcg_temp_local_new();
> > > +            l1 = gen_new_label();
> > > +
> > >              tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, cpu_ir[rb], 7);
> > >              tcg_gen_shli_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 3);
> > > +
> > > +            tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_ir[rc], cpu_ir[ra]);
> > > +            tcg_gen_brcondi_i64(TCG_COND_EQ, tmp1, 0, l1);
> > > +
> > >              tmp2 = tcg_const_i64(64);
> > >              tcg_gen_sub_i64(tmp1, tmp2, tmp1);
> > >              tcg_temp_free(tmp2);
> > 
> > Given that a test costs a lot (partly due to the fact temp local
> > variable must be used), I do wonder if doing a AND here wouldn't
> > be better:
> > 		
> >                tcg_gen_andi_i64(tmp1, tmp1, 0x3f);
> 
> I'm not sure I follow.
> 
> The code is attempting the following:
> 
>   tmp1=rb&0x7;
>   tmp1=temp1<<3;
> 
>   if (tmp1!=0) {
>      tmp1=64-tmp1;
>      rc=ra<<tmp1;
>   }
>   else {
>      rc=ra;
>   }
> 
> The problem with the original code is that in the case of tmp1 being 0,
> the shift left by 64 would result in 0, instead of the identity.
> 
> I tried to avoid the jump but couldn't.  Am I missing something?
> 

I mean the following code:

    tmp1=rb&0x7;
    tmp1=temp1<<3;
    tmp1=64-tmp1;
    tmp1=tmp1 & 0x3f;
    rc=ra<<tmp1;

In case tmp1 = 0, it becomes 64, and then 0 again after the and, so
rc=ra<<0.

Vince Weaver <vince@csl.cornell.edu> writes:

> The code is attempting the following:
>
>   tmp1=rb&0x7;
>   tmp1=temp1<<3;
>
>   if (tmp1!=0) {
>      tmp1=64-tmp1;
>      rc=ra<<tmp1;
>   }
>   else {
>      rc=ra;
>   }
>
> The problem with the original code is that in the case of tmp1 being 0,
> the shift left by 64 would result in 0, instead of the identity.
>
> I tried to avoid the jump but couldn't.  Am I missing something?

Instead of tmp1 = 64 - tmp1 use tmp1 = -tmp1 & 0x3f.

Andreas.