Re: [Valgrind-developers] Test results, 10 Dec 2002

[Jeremy F. <je...@go...>]

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:35, Julian Seward wrote:
> (mozilla-1.2.1 was looping with memcheck ...)
> 
> 
> > > It all _looks_ plausible.  I'm a bit mystified.  You sure this j[n]p
> > > trick in 69- has no strange side-effects?  I can't think of any.  Perhaps
> > > this is a red herring.
> >
> > Looks OK to me, but its a bit hard to tell without seeing the original
> > code.
> >
> > What happens if you change it back to the popf slow path?  Still happen?
> 
> I dunno; I removed the popf stuff.
> 
> However, backing out 69- makes it work properly.
> 
> I identified the original code:
> 
> 0x40224f10   mov    0x4(%edi),%eax
> 0x40224f13   mov    0x10(%eax),%eax
> 0x40224f16   mov    %eax,0x4(%edi)
> 0x40224f19   mov    0x10(%eax),%edx
> 0x40224f1c   mov    0x4(%ecx),%eax
> 0x40224f1f   cmp    0x4(%edx),%eax
> 0x40224f22   jl     0x40224f10
> 
> Attached is the cleaned-up and annotated memcheck translation.  The stuff
> to do with cmp and jl looks OK to me; the %eflags value set by the
> cmp (simulation) is correctly copied off to safety before the stuff for
> the jl, and the relevant simd test for JL looks right.

OK, I get the same thing.  I'll try playing around with it.

	J