On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
> Surely you'd also want to make this change for 0x11a and 0x11b. Which would
> also simplify that code a bit.
>
> That said, there's *lots* of missing LOCK prefix checks. What brings this
> one in particular to your attention?
>
The
On 05/13/2017 08:58 AM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
The instruction "lock nopl (%rax)" should raise an exception. However,
we don't do that since we do not check for lock prefix for nop
instructions. The following patch adds this check and makes the
behavior similar to hardware.
Signed-off-by: Pranith
The instruction "lock nopl (%rax)" should raise an exception. However,
we don't do that since we do not check for lock prefix for nop
instructions. The following patch adds this check and makes the
behavior similar to hardware.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar
---
target/i386/translate.c | 3 +++
1
