On 26/09/16 08:34, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> 0F6F was previously ImplicitOps|ModRM, but looks like it should be ModRM >> like the rest of 0F6x. 0F7F, 0FC7 and 0FE7 similarly. > Why? As mentioned elsewhere I think the (otherwise benign) > ImplicitOps (as well as the individual DstImplicit and SrcImplicit) > serve as documentation: Opcodes we actually handle have them > specified, whereas opcodes getting decoded but not emulated > don't. See the MOVQ and MOVD patches in the other series, which > add ImplicitOps to the table entries they add emulation for.
By that argument, any instruction we have an emulation for should gain ImplicitOps. As it has the value 0, I only find that it further confuses an already complicated piece of logic, as reading the decode gives the false impression that something is different. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
