diff mbox

[1/8] target-ppc: Bug Fix: rlwinm

Message ID 1407785009-6538-2-git-send-email-tommusta@gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Tom Musta Aug. 11, 2014, 7:23 p.m. UTC
The rlwinm specification includes the ROTL32 operation, which is defined
to be a left rotation of two copies of the least significant 32 bits of
the source GPR.

The current implementation is incorrect on 64-bit implementations in that
it rotates a single copy of the least significant 32 bits, padding with
zeroes in the most significant bits.

Fix the code to properly implement this ROTL32 operation.

Signed-off-by: Tom Musta <tommusta@gmail.com>
---
 target-ppc/translate.c |    8 +++-----
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Richard Henderson Aug. 15, 2014, 6:34 p.m. UTC | #1
On 08/11/2014 09:23 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
> The rlwinm specification includes the ROTL32 operation, which is defined
> to be a left rotation of two copies of the least significant 32 bits of
> the source GPR.
> 
> The current implementation is incorrect on 64-bit implementations in that
> it rotates a single copy of the least significant 32 bits, padding with
> zeroes in the most significant bits.

Yes, it does describe rotate_32 as a double-copy of the low 32 bits.  But it
also describes the mask as having "0 bits elsewhere".  Thus, post mask, I don't
see how you could distinguish the implementations.

Have you an example that doesn't work with the current code?


r~
Richard Henderson Aug. 15, 2014, 7:52 p.m. UTC | #2
On 08/15/2014 08:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 09:23 AM, Tom Musta wrote:
>> The rlwinm specification includes the ROTL32 operation, which is defined
>> to be a left rotation of two copies of the least significant 32 bits of
>> the source GPR.
>>
>> The current implementation is incorrect on 64-bit implementations in that
>> it rotates a single copy of the least significant 32 bits, padding with
>> zeroes in the most significant bits.
> 
> Yes, it does describe rotate_32 as a double-copy of the low 32 bits.  But it
> also describes the mask as having "0 bits elsewhere".  Thus, post mask, I don't
> see how you could distinguish the implementations.
> 
> Have you an example that doesn't work with the current code?

Let me guess the answer myself -- it's MB > ME, and wraparound of the mask.

I think I was distracted by the text "For all the uses given above, the
high-order 32 bits of register RA are cleared." without clearly reading the
examples.


r~
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/target-ppc/translate.c b/target-ppc/translate.c
index b23933f..a27d063 100644
--- a/target-ppc/translate.c
+++ b/target-ppc/translate.c
@@ -1672,11 +1672,9 @@  static void gen_rlwinm(DisasContext *ctx)
     } else {
         TCGv t0 = tcg_temp_new();
 #if defined(TARGET_PPC64)
-        TCGv_i32 t1 = tcg_temp_new_i32();
-        tcg_gen_trunc_i64_i32(t1, cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)]);
-        tcg_gen_rotli_i32(t1, t1, sh);
-        tcg_gen_extu_i32_i64(t0, t1);
-        tcg_temp_free_i32(t1);
+        tcg_gen_deposit_i64(t0, cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)],
+            cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)], 32, 32);
+        tcg_gen_rotli_i64(t0, t0, sh);
 #else
         tcg_gen_rotli_i32(t0, cpu_gpr[rS(ctx->opcode)], sh);
 #endif