0.8.3.94:

[sbcl.git] / src / compiler / alpha / insts.lisp

diff --git a/src/compiler/alpha/insts.lisp b/src/compiler/alpha/insts.lisp
index f17f4a7..8985a46 100644 (file)
--- a/src/compiler/alpha/insts.lisp
+++ b/src/compiler/alpha/insts.lisp
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@
                dstate))))
 
 (defparameter float-reg-symbols
-  (coerce
-   (loop for n from 0 to 31 collect (make-symbol (format nil "~D" n)))
-   'vector))
+  #.(coerce
+     (loop for n from 0 to 31 collect (make-symbol (format nil "~D" n)))
+     'vector))
 
 (sb!disassem:define-arg-type fp-reg
   :printer (lambda (value stream dstate)
@@ -409,19 +409,24 @@
   (define-fp-operate subt #x16 #x0a1)
 
 ;;; IEEE support
-  (defconstant +su+   #x500)           ; software, underflow enabled
-  (defconstant +sui+  #x700)           ; software, inexact & underflow enabled
-  (defconstant +sv+   #x500)           ; software, interger overflow enabled
-  (defconstant +svi+  #x700)
-  (defconstant +rnd+  #x0c0)           ; dynamic rounding mode
-  (defconstant +sud+  #x5c0)
-  (defconstant +svid+ #x7c0)
-  (defconstant +suid+ #x7c0)
+  (def!constant +su+   #x500)          ; software, underflow enabled
+  (def!constant +sui+  #x700)          ; software, inexact & underflow enabled
+  (def!constant +sv+   #x500)          ; software, interger overflow enabled
+  (def!constant +svi+  #x700)
+  (def!constant +rnd+  #x0c0)          ; dynamic rounding mode
+  (def!constant +sud+  #x5c0)
+  (def!constant +svid+ #x7c0)
+  (def!constant +suid+ #x7c0)
 
   (define-fp-operate cvtqs_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x0bc) 2)
+  (define-fp-operate cvtqs_sui #x16 (logior +sui+ #x0bc) 2)
   (define-fp-operate cvtqt_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x0be) 2)
+  (define-fp-operate cvtqt_sui #x16 (logior +sui+ #x0be) 2)
   (define-fp-operate cvtts_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x0ac) 2)
 
+  (define-fp-operate cvttq_sv #x16 (logior +su+ #x0af) 2)
+  (define-fp-operate cvttq/c_sv #x16 (logior +su+ #x02f) 2)
+  
   (define-fp-operate adds_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x080))
   (define-fp-operate addt_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x0a0))
   (define-fp-operate divs_su #x16 (logior +su+ #x083))
@@ -437,6 +442,9 @@
 (define-instruction trapb (segment)
   (:emitter (emit-lword segment #x63ff0000)))
 
+(define-instruction imb (segment)
+  (:emitter (emit-lword segment #x00000086)))
+
 (define-instruction gentrap (segment code)
   (:printer call-pal ((palcode #xaa0000)))
   (:emitter
@@ -487,10 +495,36 @@
         (unless (= high 0)
           (inst ldah reg high reg)))))
     ((or (unsigned-byte 32) (signed-byte 64) (unsigned-byte 64))
+     ;; Since it took NJF and CSR a good deal of puzzling to work out
+     ;; (a) what a previous version of this was doing and (b) why it
+     ;; was wrong:
+     ;;
+     ;; write VALUE = a_63 * 2^63 + a_48-62 * 2^48 
+     ;;               + a_47 * 2^47 + a_32-46 * 2^32
+     ;;               + a_31 * 2^31 + a_16-30 * 2^16
+     ;;               + a_15 * 2^15 + a_0-14
+     ;;
+     ;; then, because of the wonders of sign-extension and
+     ;; twos-complement arithmetic modulo 2^64, if a_15 is set, LDA
+     ;; (which sign-extends its argument) will add 
+     ;;
+     ;;    (a_15 * 2^15 + a_0-14 - 65536).  
+     ;;
+     ;; So we need to add that 65536 back on, which is what this
+     ;; LOGBITP business is doing.  The same applies for bits 31 and
+     ;; 47 (bit 63 is taken care of by the fact that all of this
+     ;; arithmetic is mod 2^64 anyway), but we have to be careful that
+     ;; we consider the altered value, not the original value.
+     ;;
+     ;; I think, anyway.  -- CSR, 2003-09-26
      (let* ((value1 (if (logbitp 15 value) (+ value (ash 1 16)) value))
-           (value2 (if (logbitp 31 value) (+ value (ash 1 32)) value1))
-           (value3 (if (logbitp 47 value) (+ value (ash 1 48)) value2)))
+           (value2 (if (logbitp 31 value1) (+ value1 (ash 1 32)) value1))
+           (value3 (if (logbitp 47 value2) (+ value2 (ash 1 48)) value2)))
        (inst lda reg (ldb (byte 16 32) value2) zero-tn)
+       ;; FIXME: Don't yet understand these conditionals.  If I'm
+       ;; right, surely we can just consider the zeroness of the
+       ;; particular bitfield, not the zeroness of the whole thing?
+       ;; -- CSR, 2003-09-26
        (unless (= value3 0)
         (inst ldah reg (ldb (byte 16 48) value3) reg))
        (unless (and (= value2 0) (= value3 0))