On 10/27/2017 07:12 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 17:18:44 +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> On 10/27/2017 04:06 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> ...
>>> I talked to several people and it seems that on x86 the host model will
>>> also enable new features
>>> that are not known
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 17:18:44 +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 04:06 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
...
> > I talked to several people and it seems that on x86 the host model will
> > also enable new features
> > that are not known by older QEMUs and its considered works as designed.
On 10/27/2017 04:06 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 03:40 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2017 02:57 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/27/2017 02:45 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 10/27/2017 02:31 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
gs
On 10/27/2017 03:40 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 02:57 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2017 02:45 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/27/2017 02:31 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> gs is explicitly disabled.
Now that I think about it, maybe th
On 10/27/2017 02:57 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 02:45 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2017 02:31 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> gs is explicitly disabled.
>>>
>>> Now that I think about it, maybe the 2.9 binary is going to reject
>>> the explicit gs flag a
On 10/27/2017 02:45 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 02:31 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> gs is explicitly disabled.
>>
>> Now that I think about it, maybe the 2.9 binary is going to reject
>> the explicit gs flag altogether, because it's unknown.
>>
>> Isn't this a problem?
>
>
On 10/27/2017 02:31 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
gs is explicitly disabled.
>
> Now that I think about it, maybe the 2.9 binary is going to reject
> the explicit gs flag altogether, because it's unknown.
>
> Isn't this a problem?
No. This is exactly the _solution_ and not the problem. The target wi
