From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <musl-return-15295-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with SMTP id 43df2a14
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>;
	Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:11:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 19964 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jan 2020 00:11:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 19946 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2020 00:11:12 -0000
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:11:00 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20200125001100.GY30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001181545420.21223@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200118053759.GX30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20200118094015.GE23985@port70.net>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001240755500.28245@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124011122.GP30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001241227030.6298@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124045554.GR30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001241604050.13947@key0.esi.com.au>
 <20200124134402.GS30412@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001251055530.14796@key0.esi.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2001251055530.14796@key0.esi.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Subject: Re: [musl] Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:59:07AM +1100, Damian McGuckin wrote:
> 
> Is MUSL ever likely to support Sparc64?
> 
> If so, there is tweak needed for the rounding to match the API. For
> some reason, what is returned to a user program query is just a
> right shifted version of what is in the register, with an equivalent
> left shift for when the mode is set. Very odd.
> 
> The default shift for everything else would be 0.

Unless the bits are in the high portion of the register, we can just
define the FE_* constants to match their location in the register.
Otherwise defining a shift, zero by default, is not a big deal. I
wouldn't worry about this now. It's not like a shift is hard to add
later if needed; it doesn't invalidate the proposed design.

Rich