https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
Paul Floyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #20 from NSLW ---
I guess so. Originally I didn't dig deeper to find out that
amd64g_dirtyhelper_CPUID_sse3_and_cx16 exists.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #19 from Paul Floyd ---
Shouldn't this be something like
else if ((archinfo->hwcaps & VEX_HWCAPS_AMD64_SSSE3) &&
(archinfo->hwcaps & VEX_HWCAPS_AMD64_CX16)
(archinfo->hwcaps & VEX_HWCAPS_AMD64_RDTSCP)) {
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
Paul Floyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pjfl...@wanadoo.fr
--
You are receiving this
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #18 from NSLW ---
Created attachment 156085
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=156085=edit
[PATCH] Don't use SSE4.2 on Core2Duo
Attached patch fixes the bug. Please commit it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #17 from NSLW ---
Created attachment 156081
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=156081=edit
/proc/cpuinfo of Intel Core2Duo
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
NSLW changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lukasz.wojnilow...@gmail.co
|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
Christopher Yeleighton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||giecr...@stegny.2a.pl
--- Comment #15
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #14 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to bugzilla from comment #13)
> (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10)
> There was no cpuid utility available on our host, so we substituted an
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #13 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
(In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10)
> I guess that the problem is because VEX (somewhat) examines the
> cpu it is running on, to advertise to the guest program another model of
> cpu, chosen in
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #12 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #11)
> No that's not the problem at all. Yes we may sometimes advertise different
> flags from the real CPU but the issue here is that we
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes ---
No that's not the problem at all. Yes we may sometimes advertise different
flags from the real CPU but the issue here is that we advertise that we don't
support an instruction and the client program
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
Philippe Waroquiers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #9 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
Created attachment 103244
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=103244=edit
modified with RDTCSP in separate non-inlined function
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #8 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #7)
> I'm not saying it isn't a bug, just explaining what I think is causing it.
>
> What I do know is it's not likely to be easy to fix, but it probably needs
> Julian to
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes ---
I'm not saying it isn't a bug, just explaining what I think is causing it.
What I do know is it's not likely to be easy to fix, but it probably needs
Julian to comment in more detail about whether it
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #6 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #4)
> Ah sorry I misunderstood your original report...
>
> You're saying that valgrind aborts on the instruction even though you don't
> try and execute it. My guess is
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #5 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #3)
> Sure, but is the program compiled as 64 bit or 32 bit? It's using 32 bit
> register names in the assembly but that might be normal for RDTSCP which is
> why I asked
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Ah sorry I misunderstood your original report...
You're saying that valgrind aborts on the instruction even though you don't try
and execute it. My guess is that it's happening because that will be
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #2 from bugzi...@dcopp.net ---
No, this is on a 12-core 64-bit system, apparently running under libvirt.
/etc/redhat-release = CentOS release 6.6
/proc/cpuinfo =
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 13
model
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
Sure, but is the program compiled as 64 bit or 32 bit? It's using 32 bit
register names in the assembly but that might be normal for RDTSCP which is why
I asked how you were compiling it.
--
You are
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374596
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1
22 matches
Mail list logo