|
From: Florian K. <br...@ac...> - 2011-03-17 03:39:22
Attachments:
clz-patch
|
The s390x insn selector creates an S390_INSN_FLOGR instruction to implement Iop_Clz. It turns out that S309_INSN_FLOGR is a bad name, because it causes confusion with the native FLOGR instruction. The latter computes two values, the former only one (the number of left-most zero bits). The attached patch renames S390_INSN_FLOGR to S390_INSN_CLZ and adjusts the names for the corresponding s390_insn fields. It is completely mechanical. But I cannot regtest it on my machine, because it does not have flogr. Christian, would you mind testing the patch? Thanks, Florian |
|
From: Christian B. <bor...@de...> - 2011-03-17 08:07:21
|
Am 17.03.2011 04:39, schrieb Florian Krohm: > The s390x insn selector creates an S390_INSN_FLOGR instruction to > implement Iop_Clz. It turns out that S309_INSN_FLOGR is a bad name, > because it causes confusion with the native FLOGR instruction. The latter > computes two values, the former only one (the number of left-most zero bits). > > The attached patch renames S390_INSN_FLOGR to S390_INSN_CLZ and adjusts the > names for the corresponding s390_insn fields. It is completely mechanical. > But I cannot regtest it on my machine, because it does not have flogr. > > Christian, would you mind testing the patch? Tested and reviewed. Thanks |
|
From: Florian K. <br...@ac...> - 2011-03-17 12:03:17
|
On 03/17/2011 04:07 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Am 17.03.2011 04:39, schrieb Florian Krohm: >> >> Christian, would you mind testing the patch? > > Tested and reviewed. Thanks > I'va attached it in bugzilla. I should have the remaining fix for the PR later today. Florian |