| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | 7133 | Kartik Agaram | 2020-10-28 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | . | Kartik Agaram | 2020-10-24 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | bootstrap: more tweaks to int constants | Kartik Agaram | 2020-10-23 | 1 | -13/+13 |
| | | |||||
| * | 7089 | Kartik Agaram | 2020-10-22 | 1 | -18/+18 |
| | | |||||
| * | 7041 | Kartik Agaram | 2020-10-15 | 1 | -12/+12 |
| | | | | | Reconcile a few details with the mu-normie fork. | ||||
| * | 6090 - new instruction: multiply by immediate | Kartik Agaram | 2020-03-06 | 1 | -0/+39 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is a 3-operand instruction: r32 = rm32 * imm32 It looks like https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_138.html has a bug, implying the same opcode supports a 2-operand version. I don't see that in the Intel manual pdf, or at alternative sites like https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/imul Native runs seem to validate my understanding. In the process I also fixed a bug in the existing multiply instruction 0f af: the only flags it sets are OF and CF. The other existing multiply instruction f7 was doing things right. | ||||
| * | 5983 - fix an emulator bounds-check bug | Kartik Agaram | 2020-02-05 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | | | | | | It was possible for an instruction to write out of bounds of the memory data structure. Most of the time this worked fine. However if the block ever got resized and moved the out-of-bounds bytes no longer went along. | ||||
| * | 5818 | Kartik Agaram | 2019-12-22 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 5713 | Kartik Agaram | 2019-10-23 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 5485 - promote SubX to top-level | Kartik Agaram | 2019-07-27 | 1 | -0/+1272 |