From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E533CC169C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1972C20838 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:16:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1972C20838 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43yhXW1Zp5zDqQW for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:16:43 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=sandipan@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43yhVb3Ld8zDqNx for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:15:02 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1BAEGRQ042820 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:15:00 -0500 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qk507wvxb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:15:00 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:58 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:56 -0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1BAEtxI4587944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:55 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4DEAE045; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E79AE056; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.124.31.81] (unknown [9.124.31.81]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:14:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] powerpc: sstep: Add selftests for addc[.] instruction To: Daniel Axtens References: <9460deae6525f983b6ab44e3e35c1bbbd79d3ef5.1549253769.git.sandipan@linux.ibm.com> <878syn3zqz.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> From: Sandipan Das Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:44:53 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <878syn3zqz.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19021110-0028-0000-0000-000003471845 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19021110-0029-0000-0000-0000240532BD Message-Id: <91145f12-2ff1-3bc8-89ef-b969c385b413@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-11_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902110081 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 11/02/19 6:30 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi Sandipan, > >> + { >> + .descr = "RA = LONG_MIN | INT_MIN, RB = LONG_MIN | INT_MIN", >> + .instr = PPC_INST_ADDC | ___PPC_RT(20) | ___PPC_RA(21) | ___PPC_RB(22), >> + .regs = >> + { >> + .gpr[21] = LONG_MIN | (uint) INT_MIN, >> + .gpr[22] = LONG_MIN | (uint) INT_MIN, >> + } >> + } > I don't know what this bit pattern is supposed to represent - is it > supposed to be the smallest 32bit integer and the smallest 64bit > integer 8000000080000000 - so you test 32 and 64 bit overflow at the > same time? > Yes, exactly. > > For the series: > Tested-by: Daniel Axtens # Power8 LE > > I notice the output is quite verbose, and doesn't include a line when it > starts: > > [ 0.826181] Running code patching self-tests ... > [ 0.826607] Running feature fixup self-tests ... > [ 0.826615] nop : R0 = LONG_MAX [PASS] > [ 0.826617] add : RA = LONG_MIN, RB = LONG_MIN [PASS] > > Maybe it would be good to include a line saying "Running single-step > emulation self-tests" and perhaps by default on printing when there is a > failure. > That makes sense. Will include it in the next revision. > Finally, I think you might be able to squash patches 1 and 2 and patches > 4 and 5, but that's just my personal preference. > > Regards, > Daniel >