Xen devel - Jun 2006 - X86_emulate.c: Shouldn''t opcodes like single byte 89 have "Mov" modifier?

I''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?

Any thoughts?

--
Mats


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel