>>> On 05.02.18 at 15:21, wrote:
> On 05/02/18 08:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.02.18 at 17:13, wrote:
>>> On 07/12/17 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
In order to correctly emulate read-modify-write insns, especially
LOCKed ones, we should not issue reads and writes separately. Use a
>>>
On 05/02/18 08:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.02.18 at 17:13, wrote:
>> On 07/12/17 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> In order to correctly emulate read-modify-write insns, especially
>>> LOCKed ones, we should not issue reads and writes separately. Use a
>>> new hook to combine both, and don't uni
>>> On 02.02.18 at 17:13, wrote:
> On 07/12/17 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> In order to correctly emulate read-modify-write insns, especially
>> LOCKed ones, we should not issue reads and writes separately. Use a
>> new hook to combine both, and don't uniformly read the memory
>> destination anymo
On 07/12/17 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> In order to correctly emulate read-modify-write insns, especially
> LOCKed ones, we should not issue reads and writes separately. Use a
> new hook to combine both, and don't uniformly read the memory
> destination anymore. Instead, DstMem opcodes without Mov
In order to correctly emulate read-modify-write insns, especially
LOCKed ones, we should not issue reads and writes separately. Use a
new hook to combine both, and don't uniformly read the memory
destination anymore. Instead, DstMem opcodes without Mov now need to
have done so in their respective c
