Ping. Could this patch be reviewed? The other code fix patch in this
series has been reviewed so if these tests can be reviewed then both
this series:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210705210434.45824-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
and the dependent series:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/2021
On 2021-07-12 4:02 pm, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Le 09/07/2021 à 18:04, Jonathan Albrecht a écrit :
qemu-s390x signals with SIGILL on compare-and-trap instructions. This
breaks OpenJDK which expects SIGFPE in its implementation of implicit
exceptions.
This patch depends on [PATCH v6 0/2] target/s39
On 2021-07-02 8:01 am, Laurent Vivier wrote:
Le 02/07/2021 à 12:34, Cornelia Huck a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 23 2021, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
What's the status of this and
<20210621141452.2045-1-jonathan.albre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>?
linux-user
is not really my turf, but it would be sad if this
On 2021-07-09 10:37 am, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 7/9/21 7:23 AM, jonathan.albrecht wrote:
As a general comment, I think a single switch over DXC would be
cleaner for both kernel and qemu. It seems like giving different
si_code for e.g. "0x40 IEEE division by zero" and "0x43
On 2021-07-08 1:08 pm, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 7/7/21 6:42 AM, Jonathan Albrecht wrote:
+sig = TARGET_SIGFPE;
+if ((n & 0x03) == 0) {
+/* An IEEE exception, simulated or otherwise. */
if (n & 0x80) {
On 2021-07-05 5:29 am, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21 2021, Jonathan Albrecht
wrote:
qemu-s390x signals with SIGILL on compare-and-trap instructions. This
breaks OpenJDK which expects SIGFPE in its implementation of implicit
exceptions.
This patch depends on [PATCH v3 0/2] target/s390x:
On 2021-06-21 9:44 am, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
On Mon, 2021-06-21 at 09:12 -0400, jonathan.albrecht wrote:
On 2021-06-21 8:00 am, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 11:49 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 02.06.21 02:22, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > qemu-
On 2021-06-21 8:00 am, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 11:49 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.06.21 02:22, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> qemu-s390x puts a wrong value into SIGILL's siginfo_t's psw.addr:
> it
> should be a pointer to the instruction following the illegal
> instruct
On 2021-06-01 8:22 pm, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
Verify that s390x-specific uc_mcontext.psw.addr is reported correctly.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich
---
tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 +
tests/tcg/s390x/signal.c| 163
2 files changed, 164 insert
On 2021-06-16 11:01 am, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15 2021, "jonathan.albrecht"
wrote:
On 2021-06-14 11:07 pm, Richard Henderson wrote:
The PSW_MASK_CC component of psw.mask was not handled properly
in the creation or restoration of signal frames.
Thanks Richard! Peter an
On 2021-06-14 11:07 pm, Richard Henderson wrote:
The PSW_MASK_CC component of psw.mask was not handled properly
in the creation or restoration of signal frames.
Thanks Richard! Peter and I tested this series against:
* https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1886793
* https://bugs.launchpad.net
11 matches
Mail list logo
