>>> On 21.05.19 at 15:08, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/2019 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
>> @@ -435,7 +435,10 @@ static const struct ext0f38_table {
>> disp8scale_t d8s:4;
>> } ext0f38_table[256] = {
>> [0x00] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int, .d8s = d8s_vl },
>> - [0x01 ... 0x0b] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int },
>> + [0x01 ... 0x03] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int },
>> + [0x04] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int, .d8s = d8s_vl },
>> + [0x05 ... 0x0b] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int },
>> + [0x0b] = { .simd_size = simd_packed_int, .d8s = d8s_vl },
>
> It doesn't look as if you mean 0x0b twice here, although its quite
> possible that GCC elides it silently (Clang definitely won't).
Indeed, I failed to edit the upper bound of the range in question -
with gcc the last initializer for an array slot wins. Fixed for v9.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
