Re: [PATCH 1/7] KVM: x86 emulator: framework for streamlining arithmetic opcodes

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:18:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:07:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +/*
> >> >> >> + * fastop functions have a special calling convention:
> >> >> >> + *
> >> >> >> + * dst:    [rdx]:rax  (in/out)
> >> >> > May be I miss something obvious but I do not see why rdx is here.
> >> >>
> >> >> MUL, DIV, CWD, etc.
> >> > Yes, but my question was more about actual fastop() implementation
> >> > which does not seams to handle rdx at all.
> >>
> >>
> >> It will be added later.  If you like, I can remove it from the comment for now.
> > No, I was just truing to make sure I am not missing something :)
> > Wouldn't we have to have separate fastop() function to handle rax/rdx
> > output instructions?
> 
> No.  As long as fastop() sets up and writes back rdx correctly (and
> also #DE for DIV, IDIV), a single implementation works for everything.
>  I don't want to add even more layers of indirect dispatch.

OK, so fastop() will always writeback RDX and handle exceptions, or you
want to mark instructions that needs this special handling with yet
another flag?

--
			Gleb.