Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86 emulator: Add unary mul, imul, div, and idiv instructions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  On 08/08/2010 05:27 AM, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
>>
>> This adds unary mul, imul, div, and idiv instructions (group 3 r/m 4-7).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Gamal<m.gamal005@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> index 7d78832..6d1ec53 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c
>> @@ -315,6 +315,31 @@ struct group_dual {
>>                }                                                       \
>>        } while (0)
>>
>> +#define __emulate_1op_src(_op, _src, _ax, _dx, _eflags, _suffix)
>>       \
>
> Not just 1op - add rax_rdx to the name to indicate these are implicit
> operands.
>
>> +       do {                                                            \
>> +               unsigned long _tmp;                                     \
>> +                                                                       \
>> +               __asm__ __volatile__ (                                  \
>> +                       _PRE_EFLAGS("0", "4", "1")                      \
>> +                       _op _suffix " %5; "                             \
>> +                       _POST_EFLAGS("0", "4", "1")                     \
>> +                       : "=m" (_eflags), "=&r" (_tmp),                 \
>> +                         "=a" (_ax), "=d" (_dx)                        \
>> +                       : "i" (EFLAGS_MASK), "m" ((_src).val),          \
>> +                         "a" (_ax), "d" (_dx));                        \
>> +       } while (0)
>
> The byte form of the instruction doesn't update dx, and the word form
> doesn't update edx[16:31].  So the "=a" and "=d" operands need to be "+a"
> and "+d" so the compiler loads them before the operation is started.
>
> Please add a test to the effect, for example start with eax=0x12345678, and
> multiply (byte size) 0x80 by 0x40,

We already have a value store in eax, so I can only either multiply it
by 0x80 or 0x40. Or do you mean we should have eax=0x12345680 and then
perhaps multply by 0x40 and make sure the upper 16 bits are preserved?

> and observe that the upper 16 bits of eax
> are preserved (and that rdx is not modified).
>
> --
> I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
> signature is too narrow to contain.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux