On 14/09/16 10:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.09.16 at 20:44, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
On 08/09/16 14:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -1602,6 +1602,45 @@ struct x86_emulate_state {
#define _regs (state->regs)
static int
+x86_decode_base(
What do you mean by decode_base here?
The base instruction set (no 0f or alike prefixes). Suggestions for
a better name welcome.
x86_decode_onebyte() to match the table of opcodes it is further decoding.
@@ -2644,18 +2704,13 @@ x86_emulate(
case 0x9a: /* call (far, absolute) */ {
struct segment_register reg;
- uint16_t sel;
- uint32_t eip;
- generate_exception_if(mode_64bit(), EXC_UD, -1);
+ ASSERT(!mode_64bit());
Are we going to strictly require that noone ever hand-crafts a
x86_emulate_state and hands it to x86_emulate()?
Absolutely - that's why its definition does not live in a header.
Ok.
I would suggest leaving the generate_exception_if(mode_64bit(), EXC_UD,
-1); after the ASSERT() so even if we do end up in a wonky state, we
don't try to jump the guest to 0.
That would look really strange to a reader, I think, and hence I'd
rather not do this if I can get the patch accepted without.
It is conceptually no different to
default:
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
return;
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel