>>> On 12.11.16 at 07:48, wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39:26PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so
>> > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't
>> > gua
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:39:26PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so
> > far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't
> > guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishi
On 10/11/16 16:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so
> far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't
> guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishing stack pointers for new
> vCPU-s. Runtime service functions using SSE
So far we didn't guarantee 16-byte alignment of the stack: While (so
far) we don't tell the compiler to use smaller alignment, we also don't
guarantee 16-byte alignment when establishing stack pointers for new
vCPU-s. Runtime service functions using SSE instructions may end with
#GP(0) without that
