On 14/12/16 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 14.12.16 at 11:43, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> The movlpd's should be easy to implement. They aren't meaningfully >> different from their integer counterparts in terms of needs for the >> emulator. > Well, the thing here is the increasing complexity of determining > the right size to do the actual memory access with. My plan with > all of SSEn/AVXn is to primarily group instructions by their memory > access patterns, rather than by base functionality (as is the case > now) - we're using a stub anyway, and what exactly an insn does > is of little interest (as long as it doesn't do anything unusual). > That'll then also hopefully allow to simplify the relatively > convoluted way we're currently dealing with the few insns we do > support.
Ok. Sounds like a good plan. > >>> (XEN) Mem event emulation failed: d3v0 32bit @ 0008:821d385f -> 0f 6e 06 >>> 0f 72 d0 18 0f ef 05 08 f6 32 82 0f 61 >> This is just a straight movd (%esi),%mm0 >> >> I could have sworn we already had support for this... > See the set of three patches sent earlier today: So far we support > only their store forms, yet this is a load. Very true. I will take a look at your other series. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
