add 18th iteration of classifier

1 files changed, 47 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/results/classifier/118/performance/2319 b/results/classifier/118/performance/2319
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f3148c688
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/118/performance/2319
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+performance: 0.922
+register: 0.914
+graphic: 0.911
+architecture: 0.909
+semantic: 0.851
+ppc: 0.842
+device: 0.824
+peripherals: 0.781
+mistranslation: 0.777
+socket: 0.746
+PID: 0.736
+vnc: 0.726
+network: 0.692
+arm: 0.679
+risc-v: 0.665
+assembly: 0.664
+debug: 0.663
+VMM: 0.658
+permissions: 0.616
+hypervisor: 0.613
+user-level: 0.565
+virtual: 0.563
+kernel: 0.557
+boot: 0.553
+files: 0.549
+TCG: 0.505
+x86: 0.441
+KVM: 0.417
+i386: 0.230
+
+SPARC32-bit SDIV of negative divisor gives wrong result
+Description of problem:
+SDIV of negative divisor gives wrong result because of typo in helper_sdiv(). This is true for QEMU 9.0.0 and earlier.
+
+Place -1 in the Y register and -128 in another reg, then -120 in another register and do SDIV into a result register, instead of the proper value of 1 for the result, the incorrect value of 0 is produced.
+
+There is a typo in target/sparc/helper.c that causes the divisor to be consider unsigned, this patch fixes it:
+
+\*\*\* helper.c.ori Tue Apr 23 16:23:45 2024 --- helper.c Mon Apr 29 20:14:07 2024
+
+---
+
+\*\*\* 121,127 \*\*\*\* return (uint32_t)(b32 \< 0 ? INT32_MAX : INT32_MIN) | (-1ull \<\< 32); }
+
+! a64 /= b; r = a64; if (unlikely(r != a64)) { return (uint32_t)(a64 \< 0 ? INT32_MIN : INT32_MAX) | (-1ull \<\< 32); --- 121,127 ---- return (uint32_t)(b32 \< 0 ? INT32_MAX : INT32_MIN) | (-1ull \<\< 32); }
+
+! a64 /= b32; r = a64; if (unlikely(r != a64)) { return (uint32_t)(a64 \< 0 ? INT32_MIN : INT32_MAX) | (-1ull \<\< 32);