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
On 09/06/2011 08:50 PM, malc wrote:
> Correct me if i'm wrong, previously the code worked like this:
>
> mov tmp, 0
> sub tmp, 1
> sar r, r, tmp
>
> Still UB as far as TCG is concerned but since no immediates are involved
> things worked, now, with constant folding, we are asked to sar by -1
> d
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 08:03 AM, 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 constrain
On 09/04/2011 08:03 AM, 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 t
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 a
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 ge
