On 15/08/16 16:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.08.16 at 16:25, wrote:
>> On 15/08/16 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -1851,11 +1911,6 @@ x86_emulate(
>>> ((op_bytes == 8) ? 4 : op_bytes);
>>> else if ( (d & SrcMask) == SrcImmByte )
>>>
>>> On 15.08.16 at 16:25, wrote:
> On 15/08/16 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -1851,11 +1911,6 @@ x86_emulate(
>> ((op_bytes == 8) ? 4 : op_bytes);
>> else if ( (d & SrcMask) == SrcImmByte )
>> ea.mem.off += 1;
>> -els
>>> On 15.08.16 at 16:25, wrote:
> On 15/08/16 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -1851,11 +1911,6 @@ x86_emulate(
>> ((op_bytes == 8) ? 4 : op_bytes);
>> else if ( (d & SrcMask) == SrcImmByte )
>> ea.mem.off += 1;
>> -els
On 15/08/16 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> @@ -1851,11 +1911,6 @@ x86_emulate(
> ((op_bytes == 8) ? 4 : op_bytes);
> else if ( (d & SrcMask) == SrcImmByte )
> ea.mem.off += 1;
> -else if ( !ext && ((b & 0xfe) == 0xf6) &&
>
Moving ahead the "early operand adjustments" logic, the "test $imm,r/m"
special logic in the determination of the instruction boundary is no
longer necessary.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
@@ -1742,6 +1742,66
