On 06.01.2020 17:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/01/2020 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
>> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
>
> Don't you mean mod == 11 here?
Oh, yes, of course I do - corrected.
Jan
_
On 06/01/2020 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
Don't you mean mod == 11 here?
My Jacobsville SDP does have MOVDIRI, and 0F 38 F9 C0 does result in
#UD, whereas the example from the test emulator b
Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
v4: Split MOVDIRI and MOVDIR64B. Re-base.
v3: Update description.
--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emul
