From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjEH-0003L7-Ej for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:47:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjEG-00051u-Fe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:47:53 -0400 Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.66]:60122) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIjEG-00051d-Al for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:47:52 -0400 Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for qemu-devel@nongnu.org with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1RIjEE-0005nx-SM>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:47:50 +0200 Received: from manz-5f74a792.pool.mediaways.net ([95.116.167.146] helo=[192.168.1.3]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.69) for qemu-devel@nongnu.org with esmtpsa (envelope-from ) id <1RIjEE-0004Bt-Mq>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:47:50 +0200 From: Michael Karcher Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:45:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4EA67022.3010800@redhat.com> References: <1319480506.8603.54.camel@localhost> <4EA67022.3010800@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-6RvLaGhOXML8wvMRDkMd" Message-ID: <1319557746.8603.90.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Windows 98 installer List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org --=-6RvLaGhOXML8wvMRDkMd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 10:15 +0200 schrieb Avi Kivity: > On 10/24/2011 08:21 PM, Michael Karcher wrote: > > If you know the 8086 architecture by heart, and also know the qemu code= , > > you could get the idea that there might be an emulation bug causing the > > premature acceptance of the second interrupt (would it be accepted afte= r > > cleaning up the stack frames, there would be no problem), namely that > > after an IRET or STI instruction, interrupts are only accepted after on= e > > further instruction - and only if they are still enabled. > This is true for STI (and only if interrupts were previously disabled), > not IRET. Sorry, you are right. I supposed this applied to all instructions enabling the interrupt flag. Anyway, even if that delay existed, it wouldn't affect behaviour here. Still, thank you for pointing out the mistake so we also have the correction in the list archieves. Kind regards, Michael Karcher --=-6RvLaGhOXML8wvMRDkMd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk6m2YQACgkQzhek2R7EicpkwwCghSP5d/hlvxXjRJrsucutOiFe ACQAn2xCk6VlS2WEIl5HxN04owLWj+C7 =77Cm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-6RvLaGhOXML8wvMRDkMd--