On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:35:07 +0200
Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Why not call em_cmp() here?
> >
> > I thought that I needed to check of
> > c->dst.type = OP_NONE; /* Disable writeback. */
> > later.
> >
> I mean call em_cmp() after c->dst.type = OP_NONE line, not replacing it.
I see the point!
> > So I just decided to treat CMPS and SCAS in another patch.
> > I mean I may introduce em_cmps or em_scas later if needed.
> >
> scas will likely just call em_cmp.
>
> > You prefer to treat these in this patch?
> >
> If there will be other patch for those instruction then it may be left
> as is.
In my city, electric power supply may become restricted under control
from now, though only a few hours. So please take the patch series as
is if possible!
>
> > > > + break;
> > > > case 0xa8 ... 0xa9: /* test ax, imm */
> > > > goto test;
> > > > case 0xae ... 0xaf: /* scas */
> > > > - goto cmp;
> > > > + emulate_2op_SrcV("cmp", c->src, c->dst, ctxt->eflags);
> > > And here?
> >
> > What is the difference of CMPS and SCAS?
> >
> >
> One compares to memory locations and another memory with AX register.
I wanted to know whether we should introduce em_cmps() or em_scas() later.
Probably we can eliminate introducing em_scas() because it should be
completely same as em_cmp().
But em_cmps() will be needed for inserting
c->dst.type = OP_NONE;
before em_cmp().
Anyway, I will submit a patch for CMPS and SCAS conversion separately
if this patch can be applied.
Thanks,
Takuya
>
> --
> Gleb.
--
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
