From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51868 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PEnzI-0003iS-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:59:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PEnzG-0001UI-WE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:59:40 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:59979) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PEnzG-0001Ti-Mk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:59:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:59:33 -0400 From: Nathan Froyd Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Bug report about x86 'bt' insn Message-ID: <20101106185932.GB26083@nightcrawler> References: <86eiay344b.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> <86wroqmhso.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86wroqmhso.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Torbjorn Granlund Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 07:24:39PM +0100, Torbjorn Granlund wrote: > malc writes: > > ZF is undefined according to AMD's 24594.pdf page 69. > > Ah, you're right. It seems that all existing x86 implementations leave > ZF alone, though. (I am not arguing that qeum is broken, the bug is in > my code.) FWIW, the Intel manuals (253666, June 2010) state that the ZF flag is unaffected, not just undefined. -Nathan