From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 30 0:10:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.du.gtn.com (mail.du.gtn.com [194.77.9.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D5B37B400 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cicely.de (cicely.de [194.231.9.142]) by mail.du.gtn.com (8.11.0.Beta3/8.11.0.Beta3) with ESMTP id eAU88OU11620 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified OK); Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:08:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from cicely8.cicely.de (cicely8.cicely.de [10.1.2.10]) by mail.cicely.de (8.11.0.Beta1/8.11.0.Beta1) with ESMTP id eAU88VM64978; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:08:31 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely8.cicely.de (8.11.0/8.9.2) id eAU88R948045; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:08:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:08:27 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: Wilko Bulte , Mike Eldridge , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch for current on LCA based alphas Message-ID: <20001130090827.A48030@cicely8.cicely.de> References: <20001125193430.A40717@cicely8.cicely.de> <20001127224321.F1846@freebie.demon.nl> <20001128014038.A44759@cicely8.cicely.de> <14885.23282.73569.898582@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20001130011503.A47460@cicely8.cicely.de> <14885.47251.351690.423382@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <14885.47251.351690.423382@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>; from gallatin@cs.duke.edu on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:23:40PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:23:40PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Bernd Walter writes: > > Just to be clear the values given to lca_read_config were: > > b=0, s=20, f=0, reg=0, width=4 > > That means b in LCA_CFGOFF is false and the second formular will be applied. > > The first part is 1< > this makes -1 for int - your theory seems to be right. > > But are you shure that changing our variables to unsigned will help? > > Don't we need to make '1' unsigned? > > I thought so at first too, but it was never unsigned and it worked > until recently.. And the same fix fixes a nearly identical panic on > another platform, so I'm betting this is it ;) Just another point: We don't have a negative value but still an overflow with s=21 to s=31. From my understanding we really should have a 64 bit value to get acurate results. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message