On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:07:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> >> + >> >> >> +/* >> >> >> + * fastop functions have a special calling convention: >> >> >> + * >> >> >> + * dst: [rdx]:rax (in/out) >> >> > May be I miss something obvious but I do not see why rdx is here. >> >> >> >> MUL, DIV, CWD, etc. >> > Yes, but my question was more about actual fastop() implementation >> > which does not seams to handle rdx at all. >> >> >> It will be added later. If you like, I can remove it from the comment for now. > No, I was just truing to make sure I am not missing something :) > Wouldn't we have to have separate fastop() function to handle rax/rdx > output instructions? No. As long as fastop() sets up and writes back rdx correctly (and also #DE for DIV, IDIV), a single implementation works for everything. I don't want to add even more layers of indirect dispatch. -- 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
