Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 18/06/2015 17:24, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> W10 insider has a bug where it ignores CPUID level and interprets
>> CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0H) incorrectly, because CPUID in fact returned
>> CPUID.(EAX=04H, ECX=0H); this resulted in execution of unsupported
>> instructions.
>>
On 18/06/2015 17:40, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > This unfortunately has to be done only for new machine types. Old types
> > will remain buggy forever.
>
> Ah, ok, which machine type should I target, 2.4?
Yes.
> And is patch 2 is only supposed to work with new machine types?
I'm a bit undecided t
2015-06-18 17:29+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 18/06/2015 17:24, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > W10 insider has a bug where it ignores CPUID level and interprets
> > CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0H) incorrectly, because CPUID in fact returned
> > CPUID.(EAX=04H, ECX=0H); this resulted in execution of unsupported
> >
On 18/06/2015 17:24, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> W10 insider has a bug where it ignores CPUID level and interprets
> CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0H) incorrectly, because CPUID in fact returned
> CPUID.(EAX=04H, ECX=0H); this resulted in execution of unsupported
> instructions.
>
> While it's a Windows bug, t
W10 insider has a bug where it ignores CPUID level and interprets
CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0H) incorrectly, because CPUID in fact returned
CPUID.(EAX=04H, ECX=0H); this resulted in execution of unsupported
instructions.
While it's a Windows bug, there is no reason to emulate incorrect level;
and amend
