diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'results/classifier/deepseek-2/reasoning/mistranslation/1371')
| -rw-r--r-- | results/classifier/deepseek-2/reasoning/mistranslation/1371 | 30 |
1 files changed, 30 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-2/reasoning/mistranslation/1371 b/results/classifier/deepseek-2/reasoning/mistranslation/1371 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5e37beb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-2/reasoning/mistranslation/1371 @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report. The title says "x86 BLSMSK semantic bug," which immediately tells me it's related to an x86 instruction, specifically the BLSMSK instruction. + +The description mentions that the result of the BLSMSK instruction is different from what the CPU produces. Specifically, the value of the CF (Carry Flag) is 0 on the CPU but 1 in QEMU. That suggests there's an issue with how QEMU handles this instruction. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce, it's a simple C program that uses inline assembly to set up registers and then calls BLSMSK. The problem arises when comparing the CF flag after execution between QEMU and a real CPU. + +The possible categories given include things like mistranslation, assembly lowering, device, graphic, socket, etc. I need to figure out which category best fits this issue. + +Since it's about an x86 instruction producing incorrect results in QEMU compared to actual hardware, it points towards a problem in how the instruction is translated or emulated. The BLSMSK instruction is part of the x86 architecture, so any misinterpretation would fall under user-mode assembly lowering because that's where the translation happens. + +Wait, but mistranslation usually refers to incorrect mapping from source architecture to IR/target, which could be in user mode. However, this might also relate to how QEMU handles specific instructions during emulation, which is part of the hypervisor or virtualization layer. But since it's a semantic issue with an instruction, it's more about assembly lowering. + +Hmm, but I'm not entirely sure if "assembly" is one of the categories. Let me check: yes, there's "assembly." So perhaps the correct category is "mistranslation" because it's an incorrect mapping leading to wrong CF value. Alternatively, it could be under "assembly" since it's about the lowering process. + +Wait, looking again at the categories, "assembly" is listed as one of them. So if the issue is in how QEMU translates the assembly instruction (BLSMSK) into its target code, then "mistranslation" might fit better because it's a semantic mapping error. Alternatively, "assembly lowering" could be the category since it's about translating assembly to lower-level code. + +Wait no, I think "mistranslation" refers more to incorrect mapping between source and target, perhaps across different architectures. Since this is within x86 instructions, maybe it's better categorized under "assembly." But I'm not 100% sure. + +Alternatively, considering that QEMU emulates the CPU, any bug in how an instruction is handled would fall under hypervisor or device emulation. But the issue here is specifically about the semantics of BLSMSK, which is more about the translation of assembly instructions. + +Wait, but "mistranslation" might not be the right term since it's within the same architecture. Maybe it's better to look for a category that relates directly to instruction handling. The available options are "assembly," so I think that would be the correct classification here. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how QEMU handles the BLSMSK instruction in x86, leading to incorrect CF flag results compared to actual CPUs. This is a problem in translating assembly instructions correctly during emulation. + +**Category: mistranslation** + +Answer: +mistranslation \ No newline at end of file |