Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:43:24 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: riscv port for review > diff --git a/src/math/riscv64/fmax.s b/src/math/riscv64/fmax.s > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..40655d3 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/src/math/riscv64/fmax.s > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > +.global fmax > +.type fmax, %function > +fmax: > + fmax.d fa0, fa0, fa1 > + ret this is ok, but note that riscv fmax is ieee-754-2018 maximumNumber(x,y) iso c fmax (with ts 18661) is ieee-754-2008 maxNum(x,y) (see http://754r.ucbtest.org/drafts/ and http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1778.pdf ) they only differ in snan handling, current iso c (and musl) does not care about signaling nans, but that might change. (glibc cares and gcc has flags to make it care.) musl is moving away from asm to c code with gcc style inline asm wherever possible (the drawback is the dependency on gcc asm syntax and constraints, the benefit is that pcs and prologue/epilogue are handled by the compiler so all sorts of instrumentations like debug info, -fstack-protector-all, etc just work). so i'd prefer to convert all these asm to c code. (can be done after the port goes in)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.