On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Artyom Tarasenko
>>> wrote:
Host x86_64, guest sparc64. Found a case where a branch instru
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>>> Host x86_64, guest sparc64. Found a case where a branch instruction
>>> (brz,pn %o0) unexpectedly jumps to an unexpected
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> Host x86_64, guest sparc64. Found a case where a branch instruction
>> (brz,pn %o0) unexpectedly jumps to an unexpected address. I.e.
>> branch shouldn't be taken at all, but even if
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
> Host x86_64, guest sparc64. Found a case where a branch instruction
> (brz,pn %o0) unexpectedly jumps to an unexpected address. I.e.
> branch shouldn't be taken at all, but even if it were it should have
> been to 0x13e26e4 and not to 0x5
Host x86_64, guest sparc64. Found a case where a branch instruction
(brz,pn %o0) unexpectedly jumps to an unexpected address. I.e.
branch shouldn't be taken at all, but even if it were it should have
been to 0x13e26e4 and not to 0x5.
Was about to write that the generated OP for brz,pn usually lo
