On 7/1/24 12:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
BTW I found an easy way to implement X86_SPECIAL_BitTest without
crashes (just use cpu_regs[op->n] when computing the displacement
since you cannot have ah/bh/ch/dh). But I think it will be for 9.2.
Maybe these patches can wait too?
Certainly.
r~
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:05 PM Richard Henderson
wrote:
> > no objections at all to introducing more asserts. I think keeping the
> > array is a better underlying implementation for cc_op_live() however.
>
> Hmm. I had an implementation that would detect missing entries at runtime,
> but this on
On 7/1/24 10:48, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 4:51 AM Richard Henderson
wrote:
While debugging #2413, I spent quite a bit of time trying to work
out if the CCOp value was incorrect. I think the following is a
worthwhile cleanup, isolating potential problems to asserts.
Hi Rich
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 4:51 AM Richard Henderson
wrote:
> While debugging #2413, I spent quite a bit of time trying to work
> out if the CCOp value was incorrect. I think the following is a
> worthwhile cleanup, isolating potential problems to asserts.
Hi Richard,
no objections at all to introd
While debugging #2413, I spent quite a bit of time trying to work
out if the CCOp value was incorrect. I think the following is a
worthwhile cleanup, isolating potential problems to asserts.
r~
Richard Henderson (5):
target/i386: Tidy cc_op_str usage
target/i386: Convert cc_op_live to a fu
