[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: X86_emulate.c: Shouldn't opcodes like single byte 89 have "Mov" modifier?

On 5 Jun 2006, at 21:58, Petersson, Mats wrote:

'm trying to figure out why I see a READ followed by a WRITE on
opcode-stream of 66 89 07, which translates to
        mov  %ax,(%edi)

It looks like entry 0x89 in the single byte table doesn't have the Mov
bit set... So I'm wondering if I'm reading things wrong, or if this
should have a Mov bit...

I'm also wondering about entry 0x8F in the same table - it's got a Mov
prefix, but according to my opcode-table in AMD64 Architecture
Programmers Manual, Vol 3, Rev 3.11, this is a POP instructuion. Opcode
0x8E is a Mov instruction... Is this a "oops, wrong box", or something

I added the Mov flag near the end of writing the emulator, and never went back and added it to all the obvious entries. I'll add it for the MOV variants I missed.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.