search for: __aeabi_idiv

...cks added to the code. I believe ELF targets currently decide based > on whether the final part of the triple is "-eabi" or not (as opposed > to "-gnueabi", ...), though I haven't looked at the code recently. Part of the concern is that the same code using / does call __aeabi_idiv and __aeabi_uidiv. Joerg

...ument. > Fair enough. However, the point is that emulating GCC's behavior of the exception is what I was referring to. > Today we return either zero (in divmod/div/mod) or the argument (when > calling div0 directly), and that's just wrong. Quoting the RTABI: 1. int __aeabi_idiv0(int return_value); long long __aeabi_ldiv0(long long return_value); The *div0 functions: 􏰁 Return the value passed to them as a parameter. Is my copy out of date? > > Why 0 and not infinity? Or some other value? > > Because 0 is what it was before. > > cheers...

On 9 December 2013 11:51, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > Part of the concern is that the same code using / does call __aeabi_idiv > and __aeabi_uidiv. Hi Joerg, I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod .file "mod.c" bl __modsi3 bl __umodsi3 $ clang...

Hi Joerg, > At the moment, this will call __modsi3 and __umodsi3, even though those > functions are not part of AAPCS. Should this be considered a lowering > bug in the ARM target? LLVM actually supports both variants, depending on the target. The __aeabi_* functions are part of the ARM "runtime ABI" and largely independent of AAPCS. For whatever reason, Linux (& Darwin)

Hi all, one issue found during the NetBSD/ARM tests is the following. Consider this input for EARM: int f(int a, int b) { return a % b; } unsigned int g(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) { return a % b; } At the moment, this will call __modsi3 and __umodsi3, even though those functions are not part of AAPCS. Should this be considered a lowering bug in the ARM target? Joerg

...September 2014 02:18, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where > that > > doesn't hold please? > > With the current implementation... > > int foo(int a) { > return __aeabi_idiv0(a); > } > > returns 'a', while: > > int bar(int a) { > return __aeabi_idiv(a, 0); > } > > returns zero. > > > > Quoting the RTABI: > > > > int __aeabi_idiv0(int return_value); > > long long __aeabi_ldiv0(long long return_valu...

Hello everyone, this is the fourth version of the patch series that introduces ARMv7 with virtualization extensions support in Xen. The series allows Xen and Dom0 to boot on a Cortex-A15 based Versatile Express simulator. See the following announce email for more informations about what we are trying to achieve, as well as the original git history: See

Hello everyone, this is the very first version of the patch series that introduces ARMv7 with virtualization extensions support in Xen. The series allows Xen and Dom0 to boot on a Cortex-A15 based Versatile Express simulator. See the following announce email for more informations about what we are trying to achieve, as well as the original git history: See