hi jacob the usual way is to test Rc=1, we definitely cannot present minmax to the ISA WG with two different copies of the same pseudocode.
also needs to be this style if a < EXTS(SI) then c <- 0b100 else if a > EXTS(SI) then c <- 0b010 else c <- 0b001 CR[4*BF+32:4*BF+35] <- c || XER[SO] https://libre-soc.org/openpower/isa/comparefixed/ also needs CR0 to be matching the minmax. right now the behaviour is counter-intuitive. i think... ermermerm :)
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #0) > hi jacob the usual way is to test Rc=1, we definitely > cannot present minmax to the ISA WG with two different > copies of the same pseudocode. iirc there's two copies because just testing Rc = 1 didn't work in the simulator, they should be identical except for commenting out the Rc = 1 block. the minmax RFC contains a merged version with only one copy: https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/rfc/ls013/
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #1) > also needs CR0 to be matching the minmax. > right now the behaviour is counter-intuitive. > i think... ermermerm :) CR0 specifically matches RA <=> RB since that's the comparison done internally and imo the most useful output.
changing bug #676 to see also instead of blocks, since minmax works just fine and is correct, it's just has non-optimal pseudo-code in terms of specification writing.