>>> On 29.03.19 at 20:20, wrote:
> However, the whole point of testing is to find places where your assumptions
> are violated. If the emulator ever *did* behave differently for canonical
> and non-canonical addresses, or near the boundary of canonicity, we’d want
> those behaviors to be teste
>>> On 29.03.19 at 21:40, wrote:
> I can't think of any instruction which uses %rbp in this way.
> ENTER/LEAVE/PUSHA/POPA use/modify it, but only in its integer form - not
> as a memory address.
ENTER with a nesting level above 1 will use %rbp as a memory
address (or to be precise, %rbp minus so
On 29/03/2019 19:20, George Dunlap wrote:
>
>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
> On 29.03.19 at 16:42, wrote:
On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 29.03.19 at 16:14, wrote:
> FAOD:
> 1. I don’t oppose this, but
> 2. I don’t support i
> On Mar 29, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On 29.03.19 at 16:42, wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.03.19 at 16:14, wrote:
FAOD:
1. I don’t oppose this, but
2. I don’t support it either; however,
3. I don’t think my Ack i
>>> On 29.03.19 at 16:42, wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.03.19 at 16:14, wrote:
>>> FAOD:
>>> 1. I don’t oppose this, but
>>> 2. I don’t support it either; however,
>>> 3. I don’t think my Ack is necessary.
>>
>> Well, preferably I would address your conce
> On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On 29.03.19 at 16:14, wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 2:51 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>
>>> Drop it entirely for %rbp - this register is not special purpose enough
>>> to warrant such special treatment. Add a comment to clarify the
>>> On 29.03.19 at 16:14, wrote:
>
>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 2:51 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> Drop it entirely for %rbp - this register is not special purpose enough
>> to warrant such special treatment. Add a comment to clarify the purpose
>> of the canonicalization of %rip and %rsp.
>>
>> Sig
> On Mar 29, 2019, at 2:51 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Drop it entirely for %rbp - this register is not special purpose enough
> to warrant such special treatment. Add a comment to clarify the purpose
> of the canonicalization of %rip and %rsp.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
FAOD:
1. I don’t
On 29/03/2019 14:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Drop it entirely for %rbp - this register is not special purpose enough
> to warrant such special treatment. Add a comment to clarify the purpose
> of the canonicalization of %rip and %rsp.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper
Drop it entirely for %rbp - this register is not special purpose enough
to warrant such special treatment. Add a comment to clarify the purpose
of the canonicalization of %rip and %rsp.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
+++ b/tools/fuzz/x86_instruct
10 matches
Mail list logo
