>>> On 14.09.17 at 11:13, wrote:
> I see now -- you're using a construct that is common all over the code.
>
> I think the construct could probably use changing, but currently for
> readability it's probably better to follow suit.
Perhaps, though at the time I couldn't think of anything that wou
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Note that this avoids emulating the behavior of VCVTPS2PH found on at
>> least some Intel CPUs, which update MXCSR even when the memory write
>> faults.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Note that this avoids emulating the behavior of VCVTPS2PH found on at
> least some Intel CPUs, which update MXCSR even when the memory write
> faults.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
> +++
Note that this avoids emulating the behavior of VCVTPS2PH found on at
least some Intel CPUs, which update MXCSR even when the memory write
faults.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
@@ -3028,6 +3028,47
