[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86_emulate adjustments


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:04:53 +0000
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:05:08 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Accw2tp9GPBdLpzOEduFdAAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86_emulate adjustments

On 5/1/07 14:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Okay, I view this differently - if CPUs always behaved a certain way (i.e.
> REPNE
> and REPE being interchangeable as long as the instruction doesn't involve a
> comparison) or if behavior is clearly defined (REX followed by non-REX prefix,
> where the REX then simply has no effect), the decoder should behave as real
> hardware would.

Okay, I didn't realise the latter was defined behaviour but it does indeed
appear to be. And the REPE/REPNE thing makes sense.

 Thanks,
 Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.