On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, malc wrote: > On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On 09/03/2011 03:47 PM, malc wrote: > > > Doesn't make much sense to me, guest clearly asked for 0 and not -1, > > > besides -1 violates TCG's sar constraints and PPC obliges by emiting > > > illegal instruction in this case. > > > > The shift that the guest asked for was completely folded away. > > > > The -1 comes from gen_shift_rm_T1 in the computation of the new > > flags value. This could instead be moved inside the test for != 0, > > which is the only place that value is actually used anyway. > > > > Try this. Lightly tested. > > Now i either get hosts illegal instruction or (with logging enabled) a > guest kenrnel panic.
Actually i was habitually testing i386-softmmu/qemu.. And after trying the "properly" named binary things do work.. Want to provide a comment so i can push that? [..snip..] -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
