Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modelling the behavior of flags which may or must take undef values #986

Closed
sdasgup3 opened this issue May 31, 2018 · 0 comments
Closed

Comments

@sdasgup3
Copy link
Contributor

  • For the following 8 instructions , sf should be a must undef according to manual.

    imulb_r8, imulb_rh, imull_r32, imull_r32_r32, imulq_r64, imulq_r64_r64,
      imulw_r16, imulw_r16_r16,
    
  • For the following 40 instructions , modelling af flag is not supported yet.

rclb_r8_cl, rclb_rh_cl, rcll_r32_cl, rclq_r64_cl, rclw_r16_cl, rcrb_r8_cl,
  rcrb_rh_cl, rcrl_r32_cl, rcrq_r64_cl, rcrw_r16_cl, rolb_r8_cl, rolb_rh_cl,
  roll_r32_cl, rolq_r64_cl, rolw_r16_cl, rorb_r8_cl, rorb_rh_cl, rorl_r32_cl,
  rorq_r64_cl, rorw_r16_cl, salb_r8_cl, salb_rh_cl, sall_r32_cl, salq_r64_cl,
  salw_r16_cl, sarb_r8_cl, sarb_rh_cl, sarl_r32_cl, sarq_r64_cl, sarw_r16_cl,
  shlb_r8_cl, shlb_rh_cl, shll_r32_cl, shlq_r64_cl, shlw_r16_cl, shrb_r8_cl,
  shrb_rh_cl, shrl_r32_cl, shrq_r64_cl, shrw_r16_cl

I have added a fix for both the issues in pull request. Please have a look and merge if you find them useful.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant