> vex and64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xDA 0xE9 0xDF 0xE0
> valgrind: Unrecognized instruction at address: 0x3411235BF4.
> Illegal opcode at address 0x3411235BF4:
> at 0x3411235BF4: __ieee754_powl (in /lib64/libm-2.5.so)
> I checked and this turns out to be a fragment in the __ieee754_powl() routine
> executing these two instructions:
Can you write a 10-line test case and submit that in a bug report?
There is evidence that at least some instances of fucompp and fnstsw
already work.
> fucompp
According to NEWS, FUCOMPP appeared in valgrind-3.3.1 (4 June 2008)
and is bug 161378 among others.
Source files VEX/priv/guest_amd64_toIR.c and VEX/priv/guest_x86_toIR.c
both have:
case 0xE9: /* FUCOMPP %st(0),%st(1) */
DIP("fucompp %%st(0),%%st(1)\n");
/* This forces C1 to zero, which isn't right. */
put_C3210(
binop( Iop_And32,
binop(Iop_Shl32,
binop(Iop_CmpF64, get_ST(0), get_ST(1)),
mkU8(8)),
mkU32(0x4500)
));
fp_pop();
fp_pop();
break;
> fnstsw
Again according to NEWWS, FNSTSW appeared in valgrind-3.1.1 (15 March 2006)
and is bug 117366 among others.
Source files VEX/priv/guest_amd64_toIR.c and VEX/priv/guest_x86_toIR.c
both have:
case 7: { /* FNSTSW m16 */
IRExpr* sw = get_FPU_sw();
vassert(typeOfIRExpr(irsb->tyenv, sw) == Ity_I16);
storeLE( mkexpr(addr), sw );
DIP("fnstsw %s\n", dis_buf);
break;
}
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
