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

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> else?
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
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel