From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JtMRz-0000KH-Pr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 08:39:19 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JtMRx-0000Il-BQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 08:39:18 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47678 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JtMRx-0000Ii-7l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 08:39:17 -0400
Received: from miranda.se.axis.com ([193.13.178.8])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <edgar@axis.com>) id 1JtMRw-0006wP-N8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2008 08:39:17 -0400
Received: from axis.com (edgar.se.axis.com [10.93.151.1])
	by miranda.se.axis.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id
	m46CdDlA011543
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 6 May 2008 14:39:13 +0200
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:39:13 +0200
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@axis.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Fragile MAX_OP_PER_INSTR
Message-ID: <20080506123913.GF26816@edgar.se.axis.com>
References: <480DBB9A.2050905@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <480DBB9A.2050905@siemens.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:19:06PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we ran into a weird SEGFAULT of QEMU which turned out to be a corruption
> of tcg_ctx due to writing beyond gen_opc_buf. The reason for this was a
> too small MAX_OP_PER_INSTR, given a particular toolchain (here the one
> of SLES 10 for x86-32). So far it runs fine with
> 
> #define MAX_OP_PER_INSTR 64
> 
> Does anyone have an idea how to resolve the related comment in exec-all.h?
> 
> /* XXX: make safe guess about sizes */
> 
> Or should we just increase the safety margin?

Hi Jan,

I'm seeing this too, 64 seems to be enough for CRIS aswell. Unless someone has a better suggestion I think we should increase it.

Best regards
-- 
Edgar E. Iglesias
Axis Communications AB