diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction')
156 files changed, 2836 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a4c142a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU encountering a segmentation fault when running a RISC-V simulation that uses the `vsra.vx` instruction. The user provided a detailed backtrace and steps to reproduce. + +First, looking at the problem description, it mentions that the simulation terminates with a segfault upon encountering `vsra.vx`. Segmentation faults usually happen due to invalid memory accesses or other runtime errors within the program. + +The backtrace points to `code_gen_buffer` in QEMU's code. This suggests that during the generation of machine code for the RISC-V CPU, there's an issue when handling the `vsra.vx` instruction. The error occurs at the execution level, specifically in the part of QEMU responsible for translating and executing instructions. + +The steps to reproduce involve compiling QEMU from source and running a specific binary with certain CPU features enabled, including vector extensions (vext). This indicates that the problem is likely related to how QEMU handles these vector instructions, particularly `vsra.vx`. + +Since the error occurs during the execution of an instruction and leads to a segmentation fault, it's tied to how the instruction is being handled by the virtualization layer. It doesn't seem to be related to syscalls or other runtime issues unrelated to specific instruction handling. + +Therefore, this bug falls under the "instruction" category because it involves an issue with processing a specific RISC-V instruction within QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where QEMU encounters a segmentation fault when executing the `vsra.vx` instruction. This is related to how QEMU handles instructions during simulation. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6803825d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report from QEMU into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about an assertion failure when using the RISC-V RVV instruction vmv.v.x with e64 and vl_max on a RV32 guest. The user provided steps to reproduce it, which involves setting up certain vector configurations and then executing the problematic instruction. + +Looking at the error message: it's happening inside QEMU's TCG (Translation Control Graph) when generating gvec operations. Specifically, in tcg_gen_gvec_dup_i32, there's an assertion that vece <= MO_32 failing because vece is MO_64 for e64. + +The user suggested a possible fix where they adjust how the gvec duplication is handled based on whether the target is RV32 or not. They check if the sew (storage element width) is 3, which corresponds to 64 bits, and then use i64 operations instead of i32. + +This seems like an issue with how QEMU handles a specific vector instruction under certain conditions. The problem arises during the translation of this instruction into TCG code, leading to an assertion failure when running the program. Since it's directly tied to the execution of a particular RISC-V instruction (vmv.v.x) and the handling of vector elements, I think this falls under the 'instruction' category. + +It's not a syscall issue because there are no system calls involved here; it's purely about how QEMU translates and executes an RVV instruction. It also doesn't seem to be a general runtime error unrelated to specific instructions but rather a problem with handling that particular vector move operation. +</think> + +The bug is related to the incorrect handling of the vmv.v.x RISC-V instruction under certain vector configurations, leading to an assertion failure in QEMU's translation layer. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fd512d4f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report as either "instruction", "syscall", or "or1k tcg SIGILL" is given, and it's part of QEMU. Hmm, let me think about each category. + +The term "SIGILL" stands for an illegal instruction signal. In computing, when a program receives SIGILL, it usually means that the CPU encountered an invalid instruction—it doesn't recognize or can't execute the instruction properly. Since this bug report mentions SIGILL in the context of QEMU, which is an emulator, it's likely related to how instructions are being handled. + +Looking at the categories: "instruction" deals with faulty instructions. So if SIGILL is happening, that suggests there's a problem with an instruction being executed—maybe it's not implemented correctly or isn't supported in TCG (the Tiny Code Generator used by QEMU). + +On the other hand, "syscall" would involve issues related to system calls, which doesn't seem to be the case here. The error is about an illegal instruction, so that points away from syscalls. + +Lastly, "runtime" covers general runtime errors not specifically tied to instructions or syscalls. But since SIGILL is directly tied to an invalid instruction, it's more specific than a generic runtime issue. + +So putting it all together, the bug report is related to an issue with processing an instruction, making "instruction" the correct category. +</think> + +The bug report involves an illegal instruction (SIGILL), which relates to how instructions are handled. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4d42b7a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU on macOS. The user mentioned that there are two versions of libtool installed on Darwin/OS X: GNU's and Apple's. They're saying that Apple's libtool doesn't work for building libcacard, which is used by QEMU. Instead, they have to use glibtool, but this setting isn't preserved when configuring QEMU, causing issues. + +I need to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let's think about what each category means: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve a problem with the instructions given, like documentation errors or incorrect setup steps. +- **Syscall**: Issues related to system calls that QEMU makes, possibly leading to crashes or incorrect behavior when interacting with the OS. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur while the program is running, not necessarily during configuration. + +In this case, the problem arises during the build process of QEMU. The configure script isn't using the correct version of libtool (it's using Apple's instead of GNU's glibtool), which causes issues when trying to build libcacard. This seems more like a setup or build-time issue rather than something that happens while running QEMU. + +Wait, but the user is talking about how they have to manually set LIBTOOL=glibtool each time because the configure script doesn't handle it automatically. So it's an issue with the configuration step of QEMU, not necessarily runtime behavior when executing QEMU after it's built. + +So maybe this falls under instruction, as it's about correctly setting up or configuring the build environment. But on second thought, since it's the configure script itself that isn't handling the libtool correctly, perhaps it's more about how the build process is set up rather than a runtime error. + +Alternatively, if the problem were that during runtime QEMU couldn't find certain libraries or functions because of the incorrect libtool usage, then it would be a runtime issue. But here, the problem is in building QEMU, not running it. + +Wait, but the categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. Since this is about the build configuration (configure script), perhaps it's more aligned with an instruction or setup issue rather than a runtime error. However, since the user mentioned that they have to pass LIBTOOL=glibtool when configuring, which isn't preserved, maybe the configure script needs fixing. + +But looking at the options again: if this were about incorrect build steps in documentation, it would be instruction. But it's more about how QEMU's configure script is handling libtool on macOS, which suggests a runtime or build-time issue within the software itself. + +Wait, perhaps I'm overcomplicating. Since the bug is about the configuration process failing due to using the wrong tool, and not an error that occurs while running QEMU after it's built, maybe this isn't a runtime issue. So perhaps it doesn't fit into any of these categories directly, but if we have to choose between instruction, syscall, or runtime, I might think that since it's about configuration during build time, it could be considered as an instruction problem because it's about how users need to instruct the configure script. + +But another angle is that the issue occurs when running the configure script (which is part of building QEMU), so perhaps it's a runtime error in the context of the configure script execution. However, "runtime" here refers to errors during program execution, not build time. + +Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding the categories. Let me think again: instruction is about faulty instructions in documentation or setup steps. Syscall would be issues when QEMU interacts with the OS via system calls. Runtime would be other runtime errors, like crashes or incorrect behavior while running. + +So in this case, the problem isn't during runtime execution of QEMU but rather during its build configuration. Since the categories don't include a "build" category, perhaps it's closest to instruction because it involves how the configure script is set up or used. However, the issue isn't about user instructions being wrong; it's about the configure script itself not handling libtool correctly on macOS. + +Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime issue in the sense that when QEMU runs, it has problems due to incorrect build steps, but I don't think that's what's happening here. The problem is during the configuration step, which leads to build failures or incorrect binaries, so perhaps it doesn't fit neatly into any of these categories. + +Wait, maybe I should look up how bugs in configure scripts are usually categorized. Configure script issues might fall under instruction if they involve user setup, but this seems more like a software bug in QEMU's configuration process. Since the options given don't include build or configuration as separate categories, perhaps it's best to categorize it as runtime because it affects how QEMU is built and thus its operation. + +But I'm not entirely sure. Another thought: since the issue arises when building (configuring) QEMU, which isn't a runtime process but part of the development cycle, maybe none of these categories fit perfectly. However, given the options, perhaps instruction is the closest because it involves setting environment variables to influence the build. + +Alternatively, if the problem were that after correctly building with glibtool, QEMU crashes at runtime due to some issue, then it would be a runtime error. But in this case, the crash or failure is during configuration, not when running the built binary. + +Hmm, perhaps I'm overcomplicating. The user's main point is about the configure script using the wrong libtool on macOS, causing build issues. Since the bug occurs during the configure step (part of building), which isn't runtime execution but setup, and given the options, maybe it's closest to instruction because it involves how users need to set variables like LIBTOOL. + +But I'm still not entirely confident. Maybe another approach: if this were about incorrect system calls made by QEMU during runtime leading to issues, that would be a syscall bug. If it were about faulty instructions in the documentation on how to build, that's instruction. But since it's about the configure script itself incorrectly handling libtool without user input, maybe it doesn't fit any of these categories. + +Wait, perhaps I should consider that the issue is during the configuration phase, which is part of building but not runtime execution. Since the provided categories don't include a build or configuration category, perhaps the best fit is instruction because it's about how to configure correctly. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is with QEMU's configure script not handling Darwin correctly, leading to incorrect tool selection, which could be seen as a software bug in the build process, but since the options are limited, I'll go with instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..66bf4870 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report where tests for numpy and scipy are failing when run under QEMU on ppc64le architecture, but they pass fine on aarch64. The user is involved in conda-forge packaging and uses QEMU for emulation when cross-compiling. They've been experiencing this issue for about two years since QEMU 7 didn't fix it. + +The tests are failing with various issues: arrays not matching up to ULP, permuted values, or completely different results like zeros vs ones. The user provided some examples of the test failures which show significant discrepancies in numerical results, suggesting something is going wrong at a low level during computation. + +Since these packages run fine on native hardware but fail in emulation, it points towards an issue with QEMU's handling of certain instructions or operations on ppc64le. The errors don't seem to be related to the software being tested (numpy/scipy) since they pass elsewhere. Instead, it suggests a problem in how QEMU emulates the PPC architecture. + +The user also mentioned that similar issues occur in other packages like cvxpy-stack, reinforcing that it's likely a QEMU bug rather than specific to numpy or scipy. This makes me think the issue is related to how QEMU handles floating-point operations or certain instructions on ppc64le. + +Looking at possible categories for this bug: instruction, syscall, runtime. Given that the problem seems computational and affects numerical results, it's more likely an issue with how instructions are executed rather than a system call error. Runtime errors could include issues like memory management or timing, but given the nature of the test failures, it points more towards instruction-level problems. + +So, I'm leaning towards categorizing this as an "instruction" issue because it seems to relate to how QEMU processes certain instructions on ppc64le, leading to incorrect results in numerical computations. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ffe98232 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. The issue is about the translation of PowerPC instructions `sraw` and `sraw.` not setting the `ca` or `ca32` flags as they should according to the PowerISA 3.1b document. + +First, let me understand what each category means: + +- **Instruction:** This would be if there's a problem with how a specific instruction is handled by QEMU. +- **Syscall:** If the issue was related to system calls, like incorrect handling of OS-level operations. +- **Runtime:** Other runtime errors that don't fall into the above categories. + +Looking at the bug report, it specifically mentions that `sraw` and `sraw.` instructions aren't setting certain flags. These are PowerPC-specific instructions, so this points towards an issue in how QEMU translates or executes these particular instructions. + +The user also provided links to parts of the QEMU codebase where these translations occur, indicating it's a problem with the instruction handling rather than something like system calls or other runtime issues. + +Since the problem is about specific CPU instructions not behaving as per the ISA documentation, it fits into the **instruction** category. It's not related to syscalls or general runtime errors but directly tied to how these particular instructions are implemented in QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how certain PowerPC instructions (`sraw` and `sraw.`) are translated by QEMU, specifically that they don't set the expected flags. This falls under instruction handling. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..08ff83b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let me read through it carefully. + +The user describes an issue where, when executing certain instructions like "mov eax, [r15d]" in Long Mode (x86-64), the instruction ends up being treated as "mov eax, [r15]". According to the x86 programmer manuals, using an Address-Size override in long mode should ignore the high 32 bits of the register. The user is leveraging this behavior in their operating system to save on register usage by storing other data in the high 32 bits of r15. + +However, a general protection exception occurs because the resulting memory address isn't "canonical". This doesn't always happen because sometimes the high 32 bits aren't zero. The user is pointing out that QEMU isn't handling this correctly, leading to exceptions when it shouldn't. + +So, I need to classify this under one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Let me think about each category: + +- **Instruction**: This relates to how instructions are handled or executed by the processor. +- **Syscall**: Issues related to system calls. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur during program execution that aren't necessarily tied to a specific instruction or syscall. + +In this case, the problem is with how QEMU handles an instruction. Specifically, it's not correctly interpreting the Address-Size override for the instruction "mov eax, [r15d]". Instead of using only the lower 32 bits of r15 (as per the override), it's using the full 64 bits, leading to non-canonical addresses and exceptions. + +This seems like an issue with how QEMU processes instructions. It's not a problem with a system call or a runtime error in general; it's about incorrect handling of a specific instruction's address mode. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0280b97a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The user provided a log snippet from LibreOffice's build process where it failed with an error code 132. They noted that bash returns error codes as 128 + signal number, so in this case, 132 is 128 +4, which corresponds to an illegal instruction (signal 4). + +They suspect that the issue might be related to qemu because armhf builds are problematic on Launchpad's buildds. So, it seems like during the execution of some Java code through Qemu, there was an illegal instruction. + +Now, looking at the possible categories: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve a faulty CPU instruction being executed. +- **Syscall**: An issue with system calls, like something going wrong in kernel-level operations. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur during execution but aren't necessarily tied to instructions or syscalls. + +Since the error is an illegal instruction (signal 4), it points to an instruction-level problem. This could mean that Qemu is incorrectly emulating an ARM instruction, causing the build process to encounter a bad instruction when running under emulation. Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's related to how instructions are being handled by Qemu. + +So, I think the correct classification here is "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9a75ff63 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report about the vmsumudm instruction in QEMU. Let me think through this step by step. + +First, the bug report mentions an "incorrect implementation" of the vmsumudm instruction. VMSUMUDM is a vector instruction used for summing unsigned integers. So this definitely relates to how an instruction is handled within the emulator. + +Looking at the categories provided: + +1. **Instruction**: This category fits when there's an issue with how a specific CPU instruction is implemented or executed. +2. **Syscall**: This would be relevant if the problem was related to system calls, which doesn't seem to be the case here. +3. **Runtime**: This covers general runtime errors not tied directly to instructions or syscalls. + +Since the bug specifically mentions an instruction (vmsumudm), it falls under the "instruction" category. There's no mention of system calls or other runtime issues, so I can rule out the other two categories. +</think> + +The issue pertains to a specific CPU instruction implementation in QEMU. + +**instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..972f1463 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report related to QEMU and RISC-V64's `feq.s` instruction. The user is asking if `feq.s` only considers the lowest 32 bits. + +First, I know that in RISC-V, `feq.s` is a single-precision floating-point comparison instruction. It compares two single-precision values and returns true if they are equal. Since it's single-precision, it should work with 32-bit floats. + +Now, the user is mentioning RISC-V64, which typically deals with 64-bit registers. However, when using `feq.s`, even in a 64-bit environment, it operates on the lower 32 bits of the source registers. So any issue here would relate to how the instruction processes these bits. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem described seems to be about how an instruction (`feq.s`) is handling data (the lowest 32 bits), which falls under an instruction-level bug. It's not related to system calls or runtime errors elsewhere in the program. + +So, I think this should be categorized as "instruction." +</think> + +The issue pertains to how the `feq.s` instruction handles 32-bit values within a 64-bit architecture. This is an instruction-related bug. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..dd4cfd68 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this QEMU bug report. The user mentioned that QEMU 1.5.0 has an incorrect implementation of the SSE4.1 pmovzxbw instruction and similar ones. They provided a test program where on real hardware it outputs correctly extended values, but in QEMU, only the first element is correct, and the rest are zeros. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue seems to be with how QEMU handles specific SSE instructions, so it's about an incorrect implementation of an instruction rather than a system call or runtime error elsewhere. + +So, I think this falls under the "instruction" category because it's directly related to how a particular CPU instruction is being handled by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248168 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248168 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e0a89824 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248168 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to help classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided some MIPS assembly code and described an issue where self-modifying code doesn't work as expected in the uncached kseg1 memory region. Specifically, the `swr` instruction at line 384 is supposed to change another instruction to a `nop`, but it's not behaving as intended. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The options are "instruction," "syscall," or "runtime." + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues with specific machine instructions causing problems. +- **Syscall**: Problems related to system calls. +- **Runtime**: Other runtime errors that don't fall into the above two. + +Looking at the bug report, it's about self-modifying code not working correctly. The user expects a change in memory (via `swr`) to alter another instruction from `addi` to `nop`. However, since they're using uncached memory, caching shouldn't be an issue. But maybe there's a problem with how the instruction is being handled. + +The key here seems to be that after modifying the instruction, it's not taking effect as expected. This could relate to how the CPU handles instructions, possibly an issue with how instructions are fetched or cached even in uncached regions. Alternatively, it might involve issues with how QEMU emulates the MIPS architecture, especially self-modifying code. + +Since the problem is about modifying instructions and their execution, it's more related to instruction handling rather than system calls or other runtime errors. So I think this falls under "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue where a specific instruction (`swr`) doesn't modify another instruction as expected in uncached memory. This relates directly to how instructions are handled. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b2a39800 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU based on the information provided. The user has encountered an issue when compiling and running a 64-bit binary for Octeon using GCC and then running it under QEMU with the Octeon CPU model. The error they received is an "Illegal instruction" signal, which is signal 4 in QEMU. + +First, I need to understand what's happening here. They're compiling a simple hello.c program into a 64-bit binary targeting Octeon. When they run it under QEMU with the specified CPU, it crashes with an illegal instruction error. That suggests that the instruction being executed is not recognized by the emulator or the CPU model. + +The user mentions having a patch for this issue and notes that it's insufficient for emulating all Octeon binaries alone. They also mention additional issues for N32 binaries requiring separate handling. The context provided includes a link to an upload of their hello program, which I can't access directly but is likely the test case they're using. + +Now, looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The error message points towards an illegal instruction, so that immediately makes me think it's related to how QEMU handles specific instructions on Octeon CPUs. Since the problem arises when executing a binary compiled with Octeon-specific instructions, it's likely that QEMU doesn't fully support those instructions yet or has a bug in handling them. + +So, the category here is "instruction" because the issue revolves around an instruction that's causing an error during execution. It's not related to system calls (syscall) since there's no mention of any syscall failing, nor is it a general runtime error unrelated to specific instructions. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4fdc657f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is related to QEMU and involves an illegal instruction during debootstrap second stage for a Debian m68k guest. + +Looking at the error message: "qemu-m68k-static: illegal instruction ebc0". That seems to indicate that QEMU encountered an instruction it doesn't recognize or can't handle. The instruction mentioned is EBC0, which I think is specific to the MC68000 architecture. + +The process was running debootstrap's second stage in a chroot environment under QEMU. So during this phase, when trying to execute some code, QEMU hit an illegal instruction and aborted. + +Now, considering the categories: +- Instruction: This seems relevant because it's about an unhandled instruction. +- Syscall: It doesn't mention any system call issues. +- Runtime: While it happens at runtime, the core issue is with handling a specific instruction. + +So the primary problem here is that QEMU's m68k emulator doesn't handle the EBC0 instruction properly. Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug report involves an illegal instruction error encountered by the QEMU user-mode emulator when executing the second stage of debootstrap for a Debian m68k guest. The specific error is an illegal instruction (ebc0), which suggests that the QEMU m68k emulator does not handle this instruction correctly. + +(instruction) + +The classification is "instruction" because the bug report describes a problem with handling a specific instruction, EBC0, which is causing an error during execution. This falls under the category of issues related to faulty instructions rather than system calls or other runtime errors. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..915d9bb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU not setting the parity flag correctly after an XOR instruction. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, the problem occurs when using the `xor %eax,%eax` instruction (opcode 31 c0). After executing this instruction, the parity flag isn't set as expected. However, if we replace this with `sub %eax,%eax` (29 c0), the parity flag works correctly. + +I know that both XOR and SUB instructions can be used to zero out a register. But the difference lies in how they affect the flags. The XOR instruction should clear all bits, including the parity flag because it's setting EAX to zero. On the other hand, the SUB instruction also zeros EAX but might handle the flags differently. + +The user tested this with both QEMU 1.7.0 and 1.7.50 on Debian Sid, so it's consistent across these versions. The output when using XOR results in a different value than expected (46 vs B2), which suggests that the parity flag isn't being set correctly by QEMU after XOR. + +Since this issue is about how an instruction affects the CPU flags, specifically the parity flag, it falls under how QEMU emulates instructions. Therefore, it's related to an incorrect handling of the instruction's effect on the processor state. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem isn't with a system call (syscall) nor is it a general runtime error. It's specifically about how the XOR instruction modifies the CPU flags, which means it's an instruction-level issue. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a5d8a41d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU not correctly mapping certain PowerPC Altivec rounding instructions. The user mentioned that when using ppc-linux-user or qemu-ppc on a PPC ELF executable, QEMU misidentifies the vrfim, vrfin, and vrfiz instructions. Specifically: + +- If the binary has vrfim, QEMU sees it as vrfiz. +- If it's vrfin, QEMU thinks it's vrfim. +- And if it's vrfiz, QEMU interprets it as vrfin. + +But vrfip is correctly recognized. + +These instructions are part of the Altivec vector operations and handle rounding modes: zero (z), infinity (p), minus infinity (m), or nearest (n). So they're used for controlling how floating-point numbers are rounded in vector operations. + +The question asks to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user wants just the category name as a response. + +First, I need to understand what each category entails: + +1. **Instruction**: This would involve issues with how specific CPU instructions are handled by QEMU. If the problem is that certain instructions are being misinterpreted or not executed correctly, this falls under instruction. + +2. **Syscall**: This relates to system calls. If the bug had to do with incorrect handling of syscalls (like open, read, write), it would be here. + +3. **Runtime**: This covers other runtime errors, like memory management issues, threading problems, etc. + +In the given bug report, the issue is clearly about specific instructions being misclassified by QEMU. The problem occurs during instruction decoding or execution, leading to incorrect behavior when these Altivec rounding operations are encountered. + +So, since it's an issue with how certain CPU instructions are recognized and processed, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +The bug report describes a problem where specific PowerPC Altivec rounding instructions are being incorrectly mapped by QEMU. This is directly related to the handling of individual CPU instructions, which falls under the "instruction" category. + +(instruction) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..73f6dd81 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user provided some information about an illegal instruction happening when running a test case on QEMU using AArch64. They mentioned specific intrinsics like vqmovunh_s16 and others that are being compiled into SQXTUN instructions with different data sizes (B, H, S). + +The problem is that these instructions aren't supported by QEMU, leading to an illegal instruction error when the test runs. I remember that in QEMU, if it doesn't recognize certain instructions, it throws an error because those instructions aren't implemented yet. + +Looking at the categories given: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue arises from specific ARMv8 instructions not being handled by QEMU, this seems to be related to how QEMU processes these particular instructions. It's not a problem with system calls or something that happens during normal runtime operations beyond handling instructions. + +So, it must fall under the 'instruction' category because it's about QEMU not supporting certain ARMv8 instructions, which leads to an illegal instruction error. +</think> + +The issue pertains to specific ARMv8 instructions (SQXTUN) not being supported by QEMU, causing an illegal instruction error. This is directly related to how QEMU handles these instructions. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c06be4e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about QEMU handling the blr x30 instruction incorrectly on AArch64. Let me go through this step by step. + +First, the problem is that when using "blr x30" in an executable called "bad", nothing gets printed. But it should print "func", which it does correctly when "blr x9" is used instead. The report mentions that there's no restriction on using x30 (which is the link register LR) with blr according to the ARMv8 manual, but QEMU isn't handling it right. + +I remember that blr is a branch instruction that uses a register as the target address. In this case, it's trying to branch to the value stored in x30, which should be valid because x30 is LR and holds return addresses. So, if "blr x9" works but "blr x30" doesn't, the issue must be with how QEMU handles blr when x30 is the source register. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The bug seems to be related directly to how an instruction (blr) is being executed or interpreted by QEMU. Since it's about handling a specific instruction incorrectly, that points towards the "instruction" category. + +I should make sure I'm not mixing this up with other categories. It's not a system call issue because it doesn't involve interacting with the OS via syscalls. Also, it's not a runtime error in the sense of memory management or resource issues. The problem is specifically about the execution of an instruction, so "instruction" fits best. +</think> + +The bug report concerns QEMU incorrectly handling the blr x30 instruction on AArch64. This issue directly relates to how the instruction is executed by the emulator. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..85e5180c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user provided a scenario where they're encountering an assertion failure when running specific RISC-V instructions under QEMU. + +Looking at the code they executed: +- They set up a vector register using vsetvli with parameters e16 and m1. +- Then they tried to perform a conversion from single-precision to half-precision using vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w, which seems incorrect because the instruction's operands don't match. The correct form should be either .f.h for converting float to half or .x.f for integer to float. + +The error message mentions an assertion failure in QEMU's translate.c file, specifically that ctx->insn_start is NULL. This suggests that during the decoding of the instruction, something unexpected happened—possibly because the instruction was not recognized correctly. + +Since the problem arises from executing specific instructions and leads to a fault in the emulator while translating the code, it points towards an issue with how the instruction is handled by QEMU. It's likely that either the instruction itself isn't implemented correctly or there's an error in handling its operands. + +Considering the categories: +- Instruction: This relates directly to issues with specific instructions causing problems. +- Syscall: Not relevant here since no system calls are mentioned. +- Runtime: The issue happens at runtime when executing code, but it's tied to a specific instruction. + +Therefore, this bug is best classified under "instruction" because it stems from the processing of an incorrect or unhandled RISC-V vector instruction by QEMU. +</think> + +The error occurs due to using an invalid instruction combination in QEMU. The `vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w` instruction with these operands isn't supported, leading to a decode failure. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a3a285be --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I need to figure out how to classify this bug report as part of QEMU. The issue is about x86 instructions BLSI and BLSR having different results compared to the CPU, specifically regarding the CF flag being opposite. + +First, let me understand what these instructions do. BLSI (Bitwise Logical Shift Left Immediate) and BLSR (Bitwise Logical Shift Right) are BMI1 (Bit Manipulation Instructions) introduced in Intel processors around 2013. They perform shifts on a register by an immediate value and also affect the carry flag (CF). + +The problem described is that when these instructions are run, the CF flag's result doesn't match what the CPU would produce. The user provided an example where compiling code using these instructions in assembly leads to incorrect CF values after execution. + +Now, looking at the possible categories for classification: instruction, syscall, runtime. I need to determine which one fits best. + +- **Instruction**: This category refers to bugs related to how specific CPU instructions are handled. If QEMU is not emulating BLSI and BLSR correctly, especially regarding flags like CF, this would fall under faulty instruction handling. + +- **Syscall**: This would involve issues with system calls, which isn't the case here since the problem is about assembly instructions, not interactions with the operating system's syscalls. + +- **Runtime**: This is broader and covers other runtime errors. However, since the issue is specific to how certain instructions are executed, it's more precise to classify it under instruction-related bugs. + +Given that the bug directly relates to the incorrect handling of BLSI and BLSR instructions and their effect on the carry flag, the most appropriate category is "instruction." The problem lies in how QEMU emulates these specific CPU operations, leading to discrepancies between the expected (CPU) and actual (QEMU) results. +</think> + +The bug pertains to incorrect handling of specific x86 instructions (BLSI and BLSR), particularly affecting the carry flag. This falls under faulty instruction emulation. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1b84c2e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about QEMU related to the BLSMSK instruction. Let me read through the problem description again to understand what's going on. + +The user provided an example where they compiled some assembly code that uses the BLMSMK instruction with specific operands. When executed, there's a discrepancy between the CPU result and QEMU's result regarding the carry flag (CF). The CPU shows CF as 0, while QEMU shows it as 1. + +Hmm, BLSMSK is an x86 instruction used in bit manipulation, part of the BMI2 extensions if I recall correctly. It sets a mask based on the trailing zeros in the source operand. So, any issues here would likely be related to how QEMU emulates this specific instruction. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem is directly tied to an assembly instruction (BLSMSK) not behaving as expected compared to a real CPU, it's about how that particular instruction is handled in QEMU. So, the bug is in the implementation of that instruction within QEMU. + +Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's specifically about the handling of an instruction leading to incorrect results. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how QEMU handles a specific x86 instruction (BLSMSK), causing incorrect behavior compared to real CPUs. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1372 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1372 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..53d45204 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1372 @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about the BEXTR instruction producing different results between QEMU and the CPU. The user provided assembly code where after executing BEXTR, RAX has a value in QEMU that's different from what it should be on real hardware. Specifically, the correct result is 0x5a according to the CPU, but QEMU gives 0x635a775a. + +I know that BEXTR is an x86 instruction used for bit extraction. The problem mentions that QEMU doesn't consider the operand size limit. This suggests that there's a bug in how QEMU handles this specific instruction. + +Looking at the categories: + +- **Instruction**: This would be if the issue relates to how instructions are handled or emulated. +- **Syscall**: If it were a system call error, but there are no syscalls mentioned here. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur during execution not related to instructions. + +Since the problem is specifically about an instruction (BEXTR) and its handling leading to incorrect results, this falls under the instruction category. The emulator isn't processing BEXTR correctly, which affects the outcome of the program. So, the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how the BEXTR instruction is handled in QEMU, leading to incorrect results compared to a real CPU. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d89113c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report for QEMU related to x86 instructions ADOX and ADCX. The user provided a code snippet that when compiled and run, shows a discrepancy between the CPU's result and QEMU's output regarding the OF (Overflow Flag). On the CPU, OF is 0 after executing the instruction, but in QEMU, it's set to 1. + +First, I need to understand what ADOX and ADCX do. From my knowledge, these are carry-less multiplication instructions used for operations like GF(2^k) polynomial multiplication, commonly used in cryptography. The ADOX (Add with XOR of operands and OR result) is a bit tricky because it's not your standard addition. + +Looking at the code provided: + +```asm +push 512; popfq; +mov rax, 0xffffffff84fdbf24; +mov rbx, 0xb197d26043bec15d; +adox eax, ebx; +``` + +The first instruction pushes 512 onto the stack and then pops it into EFLAGS. Since 512 in binary is 1000000000, which sets the OF (bit 11) to 1 because EFLAGS are manipulated here. + +Then, rax and rbx are loaded with specific values. After that, the ADOX instruction is executed on eax and ebx. The result of this operation in QEMU sets OF incorrectly compared to the CPU. + +The user mentions that ADCX also has a similar issue but relates to the carry flag (CF). However, in this case, it's specifically about OF with ADOX. + +So, categorizing this bug: It's related to how certain instructions are handled by QEMU. Since the problem occurs during the execution of specific x86 instructions leading to incorrect flags being set, this falls under an instruction-level issue. + +The possible categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. This isn't a system call error nor does it relate to general runtime issues beyond specific instruction handling. Therefore, the appropriate category here is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..acf51e2d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report related to QEMU as either an instruction issue, a syscall problem, or a runtime error. Let me read through the details carefully. + +The problem is about the BZHI instruction in x86 not producing the correct result when compared to the CPU. The steps involve assembling some code that uses BZHI, and then observing discrepancies between QEMU's output and the actual CPU's output. Specifically, RAX and the SF flag are different. + +BZHI is a specific x86 instruction, so it seems like this bug is directly related to how QEMU handles this particular instruction. The fact that the result differs suggests there might be an issue in how the BZHI operation is implemented in the emulator. + +Since the problem arises from executing an assembly instruction and not from system calls or runtime environment issues, it's most likely an instruction-related bug. Therefore, I should categorize this under "instruction". +</think> + +The bug report describes a discrepancy with the BZHI instruction execution between QEMU and the CPU, indicating a faulty instruction handling. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f92c8bc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +<think> +Alright, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user provided a detailed issue about SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instructions handling NaNs incorrectly in QEMU compared to real CPUs. They included code that uses assembly instructions and observed different results between CPU execution and QEMU. + +First, the problem is related to instruction handling because it mentions specific SSE instructions like addsubps not behaving as expected with NaN values. The issue arises during the execution of these instructions, leading to incorrect results in QEMU versus a real CPU. + +The user also provided steps to reproduce, which involves compiling code that uses inline assembly, pushing certain values onto the stack, and then performing an addsubps operation on XMM registers. This suggests it's not a syscall issue because it doesn't involve system calls; instead, it's about how instructions are executed in the CPU emulator. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the bug is directly related to the handling of specific CPU instructions and their semantics with NaNs, the appropriate category would be 'instruction'. It's not a runtime error in general because it specifically points out incorrect behavior of certain instructions. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how QEMU handles specific SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instructions when dealing with NaN values. The problem is directly related to the implementation of these instructions and their expected behavior as per Intel's manual, indicating a faulty instruction handling. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..088b0521 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The issue is about the LSL and LAR instructions causing QEMU to crash, whereas according to the CPU behavior, these instructions should just do nothing (nop) if there's an invalid segment descriptor. + +First, let me break down what the problem says. When using LSL or LAR in assembly code with invalid operands, the CPU doesn't execute them and leaves the ZF flag cleared without loading anything into the destination operand. But when this happens in QEMU, it crashes instead of behaving like a nop. + +Looking at the provided code example: + +void main() { + asm("mov rax, 0xa02e698e741f5a6a"); + asm("mov rbx, 0x20959ddd7a0aef"); + asm("lsl ax, bx"); +} + +The LSL instruction here is trying to load a segment limit from an invalid source. According to the manual, this should result in a nop and clear ZF. However, QEMU crashes instead. + +Now, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The bug report mentions that the issue arises with specific instructions (LSL and LAR). It's not related to system calls or other runtime errors; it's specifically about how these instructions are handled. + +So, this seems like a problem with how QEMU handles certain instructions. It's not crashing due to a system call error but because of how it processes the LSL instruction when given invalid operands. +</think> + +The bug report is related to how QEMU handles specific instructions (LSL and LAR). + +**Answer: instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a79b99eb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out why Qemu crashes when I run certain commands like 'ls' or an invalid command inside a chrooted m68k environment using qemu-m68k 2.2.0. Let me start by understanding what's happening. + +I set up binfmt_msc to handle m68k binaries, and I have a small program that execs qemu with some arguments including '-strace'. This setup works for running shells like bash or ash, but when I try commands that probably involve more complex operations or perhaps syscalls, Qemu crashes. The error message mentions an illegal instruction at 0x0000 @ f6fffa30 and gives a stack trace of registers. + +First, I need to consider possible causes. Since it works for simple commands but not others, maybe the issue is with how certain instructions or syscalls are handled by Qemu. The crash happens during an 'ls' command, which involves file system operations—reading directories, accessing files, etc. Maybe these operations trigger a syscall that Qemu isn't handling correctly. + +Looking at the error message: "Illegal instruction: 0000 @ f6fffa30". The address is in user space (as indicated by the 'f' prefix in some contexts), so it's not a kernel issue but something happening within the chrooted process. The illegal instruction could be an unexpected or unsupported opcode for the m68k CPU. + +I should check what instruction is at that address. If I can dump the memory around f6fffa30, maybe using gdb attached to Qemu, I can see if it's a known problematic instruction. Alternatively, perhaps this is a bug in how Qemu emulates certain instructions when running under strace or with specific CPU settings. + +Another angle: the '-strace' option enables tracing of system calls. Maybe there's an interaction between the tracing and the way syscalls are handled that causes Qemu to misbehave. I could try running without '-strace' to see if the issue persists, which would help determine if strace is involved. + +Also, since this happens when running commands that likely make more complex syscalls, it might be a problem with how those particular syscalls are implemented in Qemu's m68k target. For example, maybe some syscalls aren't fully emulated or have bugs in their implementation. + +I should also consider updating Qemu to a newer version if possible, as there might have been fixes for such issues since 2.2.0. However, the user is specifically using that version, so perhaps it's an older bug that hasn't been fixed yet. + +To debug further, I could try: + +1. Running without '-strace' to see if the issue still occurs. +2. Checking what instruction causes the crash by examining memory at f6fffa30. +3. Testing with different commands to see if specific syscalls are problematic. +4. Looking for similar issues in Qemu's bug reports or mailing lists. + +If it turns out that the issue is due to a faulty instruction being executed, then it would fall under the 'instruction' category. If it's related to handling syscalls incorrectly, then it might be a 'syscall' issue. Otherwise, if it's another runtime problem, like memory management or threading, then it would be 'runtime'. + +Given that the error is an illegal instruction, I'm leaning towards the 'instruction' category. But without more info on why that instruction is being executed, it's hard to say definitively. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..942048f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out what category this bug report falls under. The user mentioned it's part of QEMU and provided details about a problem with the SYSRET instruction implementation. + +Looking at the report, the issue is related to how the SYSRET instruction handles loading the stack selector (%ss) register. According to Intel's documentation, when returning to user mode using SYSRET, the instruction should reload %ss from IA32_STAR bits 63:48, add 8, and then OR with 3 to set the privilege level to 3. + +In the provided code snippet for helper_sysret(), it seems that the OR with 3 step is missing when setting SS.Selector. This leads to %ss not having the correct privilege level bits set, causing issues like crashes during interrupts in user mode. + +The problem here isn't a system call error or something happening at runtime per se; it's specifically about the implementation of an instruction (SYSRET) within the emulator. The code isn't executing as expected because the instruction isn't handling a specific case correctly. + +So, this seems to be an issue with how QEMU implements the SYSRET instruction. It's more about the instruction's faulty behavior rather than runtime errors or system call problems. +</think> + +The bug report identifies an incorrect implementation of the SYSRET instruction within QEMU, specifically regarding how it sets the stack selector (%ss) privilege level. This falls under issues related to instructions. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d4fb39eb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided a detailed description where they encountered an assertion failure when executing a specific RISC-V instruction, `vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w`. + +First, let's break down what happened. They wrote a C program that uses the RISC-V vector instructions. When compiling and running this program using QEMU with certain CPU features enabled, it crashes with an assertion error at `target/riscv/translate.c:211`, specifically complaining about `ctx->insn_start != NULL`. + +The problem started appearing after a specific commit in QEMU's history, which suggests that the bug might be related to changes made in that commit. The program they provided involves vector operations—loading doubles into a vector register, converting them using `vfncvt_rtz_x_f_w_i32mf2`, and then storing the result. + +Now, considering the categories given: instruction, syscall, runtime. I need to determine which one this bug falls under. + +The assertion failure is happening in the translation process of QEMU when handling an instruction. The error message points to `decode_save_opc` function, where it expects `ctx->insn_start` to be non-null. This suggests that during the decoding of the `vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w` instruction, something went wrong with how the instruction is being handled by QEMU's translation layer. + +Since this is directly related to the processing of a specific RISC-V vector instruction (`vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w`), it seems like an issue with how QEMU handles or translates that particular instruction. Therefore, the bug report is about a faulty instruction leading to an assertion failure in the emulator. + +So, putting it all together, this bug should be classified under "instruction" because it's related to handling a specific instruction causing QEMU to crash. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b5bb5f5b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to classify this bug report about Tricore supporting shuffle and syscall instructions within QEMU. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, looking at the instruction part—shuffle. Shuffle operations are typically related to how data is manipulated within registers or memory. If there's a fault here, it would fall under the "instruction" category because it's about executing an incorrect or unsupported CPU instruction. + +Next, considering the syscall instruction. Syscalls involve interactions with the operating system, so any issues here might relate to how QEMU handles system calls during runtime. This could touch on whether the syscall is being correctly processed or if there are errors in that process. + +The categories provided are "instruction," "syscall," and "runtime." The bug report mentions both shuffle and syscall, but I need to determine which category best fits. Since Tricore support includes both instructions and system calls, but the mention of shuffle leans towards an instruction-level issue. However, syscall is a specific type of instruction that interacts with the OS. + +But wait, the classification options don't allow combining categories. The primary focus seems to be on supporting these instructions in QEMU. Therefore, if the issue is about implementing or correctly handling these specific instructions (shuffle and syscall), it might fall under "instruction." + +Alternatively, if the problem arises during runtime when executing a syscall, it could fit into "runtime." However, since the report mentions support for both shuffle and syscall, which are types of instructions, I think the most appropriate category is "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report discusses supporting specific CPU instructions (shuffle and syscall) in QEMU, indicating issues with handling these instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f76f8038 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I have to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through it again and understand what's going on. + +The user is reporting an issue with QEMU-i386 when using the -cpu pentium3 option from 2015. They mention that a binary containing a 'movsd' instruction (which is part of SSE2) runs flawlessly in this setup, but according to their understanding, it should crash because Pentium 3 processors only have SSE, not SSE2. + +Hmm, so the problem here seems to be related to how QEMU handles instructions on different CPU types. The movsd instruction requires SSE2 support, which wasn't available on Pentium 3 chips. Therefore, when such an instruction is executed on a P3, it should cause an illegal instruction exception (SIGILL). But in this case, QEMU isn't doing that; the program runs without any issues. + +Looking at the categories: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues with how instructions are handled or emulated. +- **Syscall**: Problems related to system calls. +- **Runtime**: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +In this bug report, the issue is specifically about an instruction (movsd) that shouldn't be supported on a Pentium 3 being executed without error. This points directly to how QEMU handles instructions for different CPUs. The emulator isn't correctly identifying or handling the SSE2 instruction when running in Pentium 3 mode. + +So the problem lies with the instruction emulation, meaning it's an instruction-related bug. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1471 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1471 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..344f316c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1471 @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +<think> +Alright, I need to classify this bug report for QEMU into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me go through each part step by step. + +First, the problem is that when running an amd64 build of curl using qemu-x86_64, it's throwing a SSL error related to bad signature during key exchange. The same setup works with aarch64 and previous commits, so something changed in commit 16fc5726a6. + +The user ran a git bisect and found that this specific commit introduced the issue. They also mentioned that the problem persists at the current tip of the repository, which suggests it's not just a temporary bug but something deeper. + +Looking at the error message: curl is failing with an SSL error about bad signature during key exchange. That points to issues in how the SSL/TLS handshake is handled by the emulated environment. So it's related to cryptographic operations or perhaps how QEMU handles certain instructions or system calls that are critical for SSL/TLS. + +Now, considering the categories: + +1. **Instruction**: If the bug was due to a faulty instruction being executed incorrectly by QEMU, this would fall here. For example, if an x86_64 instruction wasn't emulated properly, leading to incorrect computations in curl's SSL process. + +2. **Syscall**: This category would be relevant if there were issues with system calls made by the guest OS or application that QEMU failed to handle correctly. For example, if a syscall related to network or cryptography wasn't implemented properly. + +3. **Runtime**: This is for other runtime errors not covered by instructions or syscalls. Issues like memory management, timing problems, or unexpected behavior during execution would fit here. + +In this case, the SSL error suggests that the problem arises during the execution of the program (curl) when performing cryptographic operations. Since the aarch64 version works but the x86_64 doesn't, it's likely related to how QEMU emulates certain instructions or handles specific operations needed for SSL/TLS. + +I'm leaning towards **instruction** because SSL/TLS heavily relies on cryptographic operations that are often handled by specific CPU instructions. If QEMU is not correctly emulating these instructions, especially in the amd64 target, it could lead to incorrect calculations and thus SSL handshake failures. + +However, I should also consider if this could be a syscall issue. Maybe the way QEMU handles certain syscalls related to cryptography or network operations has changed, causing issues for x86_64 but not aarch64. But since curl is using its own SSL implementation (like OpenSSL), which relies on CPU instructions rather than syscalls, it's more likely an instruction emulation issue. + +Therefore, the most appropriate category is **instruction**. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fab30ca6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about AVX/AVX2 not being detected correctly in user mode within QEMU. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, understanding what each category means: +- Instruction: Issues with specific CPU instructions. +- Syscall: Problems related to system calls. +- Runtime: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +The bug is about AVX/AVX2 detection failing in user mode. QEMU is an emulator that deals with virtualization and emulating CPUs. AVX and AVX2 are instruction sets, so it's related to how instructions are handled. + +Since the issue is about detecting these instruction sets, which are part of CPU instructions, it likely falls under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall issue because it's not about system calls; it's more about CPU features. Also, it's not a general runtime error but specifically related to instructions. + +So I think the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug involves AVX/AVX2 instruction detection issues, which relates to handling CPU instructions in QEMU. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6e9f6a9d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem is that some test programs using specific VSX instructions (vextractbm, vextracthm, vextractwm, vextractdm) fail on qemu-ppc64 but not on qemu-ppc64le. + +First, I'll analyze the issue. These are vector extract instructions in PowerISA, used for extracting bits from a mask into a register. The tests work on little-endian (ppc64le) but fail on big-endian (ppc64). This suggests an endianness issue or something specific to how these instructions are handled in the emulator. + +The user provides steps to reproduce using both a custom test and Google Highway's unit tests, which compiles and runs under QEMU. The problem occurs at runtime when executing these specific instructions, leading me to think it's related to how QEMU emulates these instructions on ppc64. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is not a system call error because it's about vector operations. It's also not a general runtime error unrelated to any particular operation but rather specific to certain instructions. + +So, this seems like a problem with how QEMU handles these specific instructions on big-endian PowerPC64. Therefore, the bug falls under the "instruction" category because it involves incorrect handling of specific CPU instructions by the emulator. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4b27dccd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU and POWER9 emulation. The user mentioned that when using compiler optimizations (like -O2) with gcc 11.3 or later, comparing two floating-point memory operands gives incorrect results. They provided steps to reproduce, including building the code and running it in QEMU. + +First, I need to understand what's happening here. The issue arises during runtime because the problem occurs when executing the compiled binary inside QEMU. It's not a compile-time error or something related to system calls; instead, it's about how QEMU emulates certain instructions on the POWER9 architecture. + +The bug report suggests that the comparison of floating-point numbers isn't working as expected under emulation. This points towards an issue with how specific instructions are handled by QEMU when optimizations are applied. Since it's a runtime error related to instruction handling, I think this falls under the 'instruction' category because it involves the incorrect execution or interpretation of certain CPU instructions during emulation. + +I should also consider other categories: 'syscall' would involve issues with system calls, which isn't mentioned here. 'Runtime' is broader and could include various runtime errors not tied to specific instructions. But since the problem is specifically about floating-point comparisons (which are CPU instructions), 'instruction' seems more precise. +</think> + +The issue pertains to incorrect handling of floating-point comparison instructions under emulation, making it an instruction-related bug. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c411846e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user provided a build error when compiling QEMU on Windows 10 using MSYS2 and GCC. The error message is about an implicit declaration of a function called 'qemu_close_to_socket' in the file spice-core.c at line 152. + +First, I need to understand what each category means: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues with specific instructions in the code that aren't working correctly. +- **Syscall**: Problems related to system calls, like using incorrect syscalls or handling them improperly. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur when the program is running, not during compilation. + +Looking at the error message, it's a build-time issue. The compiler is complaining about an implicit function declaration. That means the function 'qemu_close_to_socket' isn't declared before it's used in the code. So, when the compiler sees this line: + +```c +qemu_close_to_socket(watch->fd); +``` + +It doesn't know where this function is defined or declared. The error mentions an implicit declaration and a nested extern issue. This suggests that either the function isn't declared anywhere, or perhaps it's declared in a way that's not visible at this point. + +So, why does this happen? It could be because the header file containing the declaration of 'qemu_close_to_socket' wasn't included in spice-core.c. Alternatively, maybe the function was moved or renamed without updating all references to it. + +Since the issue arises during compilation and isn't about how the code runs, it's not a runtime error. Similarly, it doesn't seem related to system calls directly but more about function declarations. So, this points towards an instruction-level problem because it's an issue with how the code is structured—specifically, missing or incorrect function declarations. + +I also recall that in C, if a function isn't declared before use, the compiler assumes it returns an int and has the correct parameters, but in modern compilers (especially with strict warnings), this leads to errors. So, the fix would likely involve adding the proper declaration of 'qemu_close_to_socket' in the appropriate header file that's included by spice-core.c. + +Therefore, categorizing this, since it's a problem with function declaration and usage within the code structure, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +The error is due to an undeclared function causing a compilation issue. It relates to missing or incorrect function declarations in the code structure. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e59f9988 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU's TCG mode incorrectly emulating the 'mov' instruction when dealing with segment registers on AMD CPUs. The user mentioned that the current behavior marks the GS segment as unusable and sets its base to zero, which is correct for Intel but not AMD. On AMD, writing 0 to %gs shouldn't change the base. + +First, I need to understand what category this falls under: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The bug report specifically talks about how certain instructions (like 'movl %eax, %gs') are being emulated incorrectly in TCG mode for AMD CPUs. It's not related to system calls; it's about the execution of an assembly instruction. So it's more about the handling of specific instructions rather than a syscall error. + +Next, considering whether it's an instruction issue or a runtime problem. Since the problem arises from how the 'mov' instruction is being handled in emulation, it relates directly to the processing of that specific instruction. Therefore, it falls under the instruction category rather than runtime issues, which would involve other runtime errors not tied to specific instructions. + +So, putting it all together, this bug report is about an incorrect handling of a specific instruction ('mov' affecting segment registers) in TCG mode for AMD CPUs, making it fall under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +The issue described relates to how the QEMU emulator handles specific instructions (like `mov` affecting segment registers) on AMD CPUs. Since it's about the emulation of assembly instructions rather than system calls or general runtime errors, it falls under the instruction category. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9ff97d21 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU not rejecting certain ARM instructions on non-V8 CPUs. The user provided an example where vrintz is executed instead of being rejected on a Cortex-A9 processor. They also included objdump and qemu output showing the instruction being processed. + +The categories to consider are instruction, syscall, or runtime errors. Since the issue is about handling specific ARM instructions incorrectly, it falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..769ee556 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The report talks about SIMD instructions not being translated correctly by QEMU, resulting in scalar host instructions instead of using SIMD. The user mentions that there have been some efforts and even a patch series but no resolution yet. + +First, I should understand what each category means. "Instruction" likely refers to issues with how specific CPU instructions are handled. Since the problem is about SIMD (like NEON, MMX, SSE) not being properly translated into host SIMD instructions, that sounds like it's related to instruction translation or execution within QEMU. + +"Syscall" would involve errors in system calls, which doesn't seem relevant here because the issue isn't about how the guest OS interacts with the host via syscalls but rather about CPU instruction handling. + +"Runtime" issues are other runtime problems. This could be a broader category, but since the problem is specifically about instruction translation and performance, it's more precise to classify it under "instruction." + +So putting it all together, the bug report falls under the "instruction" category because it's about how certain CPU instructions (SIMD) are being mishandled during translation. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how specific CPU instructions (SIMD) are translated by QEMU, leading to suboptimal performance. This is a problem related to instruction handling rather than syscalls or general runtime errors. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3ce33eab --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU. The user reported an issue with the PEXT instruction returning wrong values when emulated by QEMU. They suspect it's related to how the helper function is called in the translate.c file. + +First, let me understand what each category means. "Instruction" would be if there's a problem with how an instruction is handled. "Syscall" would involve system calls going wrong. "Runtime" covers other runtime errors that aren't instructions or syscalls. + +In this case, the issue is specifically about the PEXT instruction in BMI2 not working correctly. The user ran their program both on QEMU and a physical CPU with BMI2 support and noticed discrepancies. They also suspect the gen_helper_pext function might be incorrectly handling arguments. + +So, since it's directly related to how an instruction (PEXT) is being emulated, this falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug report discusses issues with the PEXT instruction in QEMU, specifically regarding incorrect argument handling. This relates directly to how instructions are processed. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8cf6ee21 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about the RISC-V fence.i instruction not working as expected in QEMU. The test involves two threads on different CPUs. P0 changes some code while P1 reads it, does a fence.i, and then executes the same code. The result shows that P1 reads the new code (x5=0xa009) but still executes the old one (x7=1), which is against the specification. + +Fence instructions are used to enforce ordering of memory operations. In RISC-V, fence.i specifically orders instruction fetches. So if fence.i isn't working, it means that after changing code in one thread, another might not see those changes correctly because the fence didn't properly order the instructions. + +The problem is occurring during runtime when P1 executes the code. The issue isn't with a system call (syscall) or a faulty instruction per se, but rather an incorrect behavior of an instruction—fence.i—in how it's implemented in QEMU. + +So this seems to be a bug related to the handling of the fence.i instruction within the emulator. Therefore, the category should be "instruction" because it's about the correct functionality of a specific instruction not being met. +</think> + +The problem is with the behavior of the `fence.i` instruction in QEMU, indicating an issue with how this instruction is handled. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..03df11c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided some information about certain instructions and tests related to the MSR[SPV] flag. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, the bug report mentions that in QEMU's target-ppc/translate.c file, there are several places where tests for MSR[SPV] need to be removed or adjusted. Specifically, they're talking about scalar single-precision floating-point instructions and how they shouldn't generate an interrupt when MSR[SPV] is not set. + +They list five places where these changes are needed: four specific function definitions and a macro that's already correct. Additionally, another macro used by both efs- and efd-instructions needs to be split into two versions because the current implementation isn't handling the efd-case correctly without testing MSR[SPV]. + +Looking at the possible categories—instruction, syscall, runtime—I need to determine which one fits best. + +The issue is about how certain instructions are being handled in QEMU's translation process. It's not a problem with system calls (syscall) or a general runtime error that occurs during execution (runtime). Instead, it's specifically about the way floating-point instructions are being translated and whether they're correctly checking for the MSR[SPV] flag. + +So, this seems to fall under the "instruction" category because it's about how specific instructions are processed. The problem arises from incorrect handling of these instructions in the translation layer, leading to potential errors when running code that uses them. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how certain floating-point instructions are handled during translation, specifically regarding the MSR[SPV] flag. This is related to instruction processing rather than system calls or general runtime issues. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..75ddfb9e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about SVE (Scalable Vector Extension) first-faulting gather loads returning incorrect data in QEMU. Specifically, when using `ldff1` instructions where `<Zt> == <Zm>`, the loaded vector ends up with duplicated elements, and the FFR incorrectly indicates all loads succeeded. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce, they involve assembly code that uses `ldff1d` instruction. The test shows that instead of loading different values from memory, all elements become 42, which is the first element. This suggests a problem during the execution of this specific SVE instruction in QEMU. + +The additional information mentions that the same code works correctly on real hardware and other gather operations are fine in QEMU. So it's isolated to how QEMU handles this particular instruction under these conditions. + +Given all this, the bug is related to how an instruction (specifically `ldff1d`) is being executed by QEMU, leading to incorrect data handling. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..15b70ed2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU not handling certain return instructions correctly when dealing with non-canonical IP addresses. The user provided some test programs and their outputs on both native CPU and QEMU. + +From what I understand, when a program uses instructions like `iretq`, `lret`, or `ret` with a return address that's not canonical (like 0x1234567812345678), the behavior differs between real hardware and QEMU. On a native CPU, it seems the instruction fails before execution, resulting in a SIGSEGV with the current IP pointing to the failed `iret`. In QEMU, however, the instruction appears to execute successfully, but then an exception is thrown when trying to fetch instructions from that non-canonical address. + +The user wants me to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to determine what's causing the discrepancy. The issue arises during the execution of return instructions (`iretq`, `lret`, `ret`), which suggests it's related to how QEMU emulates these specific CPU instructions. Since the problem is about incorrect handling of the instruction flow and IP addresses, it likely falls under an issue with how instructions are processed. + +Looking at the categories: +- **Instruction**: Pertains to faulty or incorrect handling of CPU instructions. +- **Syscall**: Involves errors in system calls. +- **Runtime**: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +In this case, the problem is directly tied to how QEMU handles these return instructions and their associated IP addresses. It's about instruction execution and exception handling, which are core parts of CPU emulation. Therefore, it should be classified under "instruction." +</think> + +The issue relates to incorrect handling of specific CPU instructions by QEMU when dealing with non-canonical IP addresses during return operations. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..569734dd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report as part of QEMU. The user provided some code and an example where using SME FMOPA instruction gives incorrect results when using tile 1 instead of tile 0. Let me think through this step by step. + +First, looking at the problem description: When they perform an outer product of a vector filled with 1.0s, it should result in a matrix full of 1.0s. However, they're getting zeros when using za1.s but correct results with za0.s. So there's something wrong with how the tiles are being handled. + +The code provided uses SME instructions. I know that SME (Scalable Matrix Extension) introduces vectorized operations for matrix computations. The FMOPA instruction is used here, which stands for Floating-point Matrix Outer Product and Accumulate. It should compute an outer product of two vectors and add it to a matrix tile. + +In the SML, when they execute the FMOPA with za1.s as the destination, after that, when they read from za1v.s, they get zeros instead of ones. But using za0.s works fine. So this seems like an issue with how QEMU handles the FMOPA instruction when it's written to a specific tile (tile 1 in this case). + +Looking at the steps: They compile and run with QEMU, which is where the bug manifests. The output shows all zeros, meaning that either the FMOPA isn't correctly writing to za1.s or reading from it. + +So, considering the possible categories: +- instruction: Faulty instruction described. +- syscall: Error in system call. +- runtime: Other runtime errors. + +The issue seems to be related directly to how QEMU handles the SME instructions, specifically FMOPA when using tile 1. So this points towards an issue with the instruction handling or the emulator's implementation of that instruction. + +Therefore, it's likely an "instruction" category bug because it involves incorrect behavior of a specific assembly instruction within QEMU. +</think> + +The problem relates to how QEMU handles the SME FMOPA instruction when writing to a specific tile, indicating a fault in the instruction processing. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5ec54449 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report about QEMU crashing when executing `ucomiss` instructions on an AArch64 host. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, looking at the description: it mentions that the crash happens during the execution of a specific instruction (`ucomiss`). This suggests that the issue is related to how QEMU handles this particular instruction. `ucomiss` is an x86 instruction used for comparing single-precision floating-point values. Since the host is AArch64, which uses a different architecture, QEMU must emulate this instruction. + +The problem here seems to be in the emulation code for `ucomiss`. If the emulation isn't handling the instruction correctly, it could cause unexpected behavior or crashes. This points towards an issue with how the instruction is being processed rather than a system call (syscall) or another runtime error unrelated to specific instructions. + +So, the bug is likely related to the handling of the `ucomiss` instruction during emulation. Therefore, the category should be "instruction." +</think> + +The crash occurs due to issues in emulating the `ucomiss` instruction on AArch64, indicating a problem with how the instruction is handled by QEMU. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0fe93adb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user provided several C code snippets that use inline assembly instructions. When these codes are compiled and run under QEMU, they trigger an illegal instruction error (signal 4). However, when executed on a real machine, the programs work fine. + +Looking at the code examples, each uses specific x86-64 SIMD instructions like `psignw`, `pmulhrsw`, etc. These are part of SSE and AVX instruction sets. The problem arises because QEMU's version (2.7.0) might not support all these instructions or has issues emulating them correctly. + +The user provided information about their system: they're running Ubuntu with a 3.13 kernel, using GCC 4.8.4 and QEMU 2.7.0. The real machine probably supports the necessary instruction sets, but QEMU's emulation is lacking, causing the error. + +So, this issue isn't related to syscalls or runtime errors in general. It's specifically about certain instructions not being handled properly by QEMU. Therefore, it falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug report describes issues with specific x86-64 instructions not being correctly emulated by QEMU 2.7.0, leading to illegal instruction errors when running programs that use those instructions. Real hardware supports these instructions, but QEMU's emulation is faulty. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d5d57cd3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's see what this bug report is about. The user mentions that QEMU crashes when emulating an STXP instruction on a Windows host using MSYS2. They've narrowed it down to a specific commit and provided some gdb output. + +The issue seems related to the helper function `helper_atomic_cmpxchgo_le`, which handles atomic compare-and-exchange operations. The crash happens during this operation, specifically when passing I128 arguments. Since the problem is with an instruction (STXP) and how it's being handled in emulation, it falls under the 'instruction' category. + +So, yes, the bug is about a faulty instruction causing a crash. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where QEMU crashes while emulating the STXP instruction on a Windows host. The problem arises from incorrect handling of I128 arguments in the helper function for atomic operations. This directly relates to how instructions are processed during emulation. + +**instruction** + +Answer: instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0f6be059 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report from QEMU. The user provided several test failures related to floating-point operations on an SH4 CPU. They mentioned that they don't have access to SH4 hardware for comparison. + +First, looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The errors seem to involve floating-point functions like coshf, logbf, sinh, etc. These are math functions, so it's possible there's an issue with how these instructions are being handled by QEMU's emulation of the SH4 CPU. + +The bug reports mention "Unhandled trap: 0x1a0" or similar, which suggests that exceptions or traps are occurring during instruction execution. This makes me think it's related to how certain instructions are processed. + +So, since it's about handling specific instructions leading to errors like traps and incorrect floating-point computations, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug report involves issues with instruction processing leading to traps and incorrect floating-point results in QEMU's SH4 emulation. + +**Answer: instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..87702ec7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me go through the information provided to figure out where it fits best. + +The bug report talks about an issue with the ldp instruction in QEMU when running on aarch64 architecture. The problem occurs when loading two 64-bit values from memory where each register is loaded from different pages, and one of those pages is unmapped. This leads to an exception being raised, but after handling it, the OS tries to rerun the instruction, causing another error because x0 has already been updated. + +The user references section D.1.14.5 of the ARMv8 manual, which states that on taking an exception, registers used in address generation should be restored to their initial values. However, in this case, x0 is being changed, leading to incorrect behavior when retrying the instruction. + +They mention observing this issue while running FreeBSD with a specific memcpy implementation using similar instructions and saw it in different versions of QEMU. The problem seems to stem from how exceptions are handled during multi-register loads, specifically with the ldp instruction. + +Now, looking at the categories: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues directly related to how individual instructions are executed or translated. +- **Syscall**: Issues related to system calls or their handling. +- **Runtime**: Errors that occur during runtime but aren't tied to specific instructions or syscalls. + +The problem here is clearly tied to the execution of the ldp instruction and how QEMU handles exceptions in this context. It's about how registers are updated before an exception occurs, which affects the retry mechanism. Since it's directly related to the handling of a specific instruction and its side effects during memory operations, this falls under an issue with the instruction processing. + +Therefore, the category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug report discusses issues with how QEMU handles the ldp instruction in specific scenarios leading to exceptions. The problem lies in the handling of registers and retries after exceptions, which pertains directly to the execution of instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5b2dbd08 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. The user has encountered an "Illegal Instruction" error when running their program under QEMU for MIPS N32 architecture. They've provided some details about the issue. + +First, they ran the command `qemu-mipsn32 run` and got a SIGILL (signal 4), which indicates an illegal instruction. Then they tried debugging with GDB and found that the error occurs at address `0x3f7d2434`, which is inside `/lib32/ld.so.1`. When they disassembled this file, they saw an `exts` instruction at offset 0x4434. + +Looking at the disassembly: + +``` +4434: 7047f03a exts a3,v0,0x0,0x1e +... +``` + +The `exts` instruction is part of the MIPS instruction set. The user mentioned they're using QEMU for MIPS N32, which targets 64-bit MIPS processors in N32 mode. + +Now, I remember that in some cases, certain instructions might not be recognized by older or less complete CPU models in QEMU. For example, if the emulator isn't configured to support all the necessary instruction extensions, it could throw an illegal instruction error when encountering such commands. + +So, the problem is likely related to the `exts` instruction not being supported by the current configuration of the QEMU MIPS N32 emulator. This falls under a faulty instruction because the emulator doesn't handle this specific instruction correctly. + +I think the category here should be "instruction" since it's about an unsupported or faulty instruction causing the crash. +</think> + +The error occurs due to the `exts` instruction, which isn't recognized by the QEMU MIPS N32 emulator. This is a problem with handling a specific instruction. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0138f7e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let's break it down step by step. + +The user reported that several GCC/sanitizer tests are failing with a timeout when run under QEMU. They noticed that this started happening after upgrading from qemu-2.7 to qemu-2.8 and continues in qemu-2.10.1. The provided test case, alloca_instruments_all_paddings.exe, works fine on older versions but hangs on newer ones. + +They attached the necessary libraries and described how to reproduce the issue using the command `qemu-arm -cpu any -R 0 -L $PWD $PWD/alloca_instruments_all_paddings.exe`. The program completes quickly with qemu-2.7 but never finishes with qemu-2.8. + +Using `-d in_asm`, they observed that QEMU seems to stall on a specific instruction: `0x40b6eb44: e08f4004 add r4, pc, r4`. This suggests the issue might be related to how QEMU handles this particular ARM instruction or the context around it. + +Now, considering the categories provided: + +1. **Instruction**: Relates to a faulty instruction causing issues. +2. **Syscall**: Errors during system calls. +3. **Runtime**: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +The problem here seems tied to QEMU's handling of an ARM instruction (add with pc and r4). Since it stalls on this specific instruction, it points towards an issue in how QEMU emulates or executes certain instructions. There's no mention of system calls failing, so syscall isn't likely. It also doesn't seem like a general runtime error but rather something specific to the execution of an instruction. + +Therefore, the bug is most likely related to an instruction handling issue within QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7fe11cac --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided some code and steps to reproduce an issue related to the ssra instruction when using vector lengths of 1024 bits or higher. + +First, let's understand what's going on. The code uses ARM SVE instructions, specifically svsra for both signed and unsigned integers. When running with a vector length of 64, it works correctly, giving an expected result of 64. But when the vector length is increased to 128 or higher, the signed version returns 0 instead of the correct value, while the unsigned one still gives 64. + +The issue seems specific to how QEMU emulates the ssra instruction under certain vector lengths. The problem occurs during runtime because it's about how instructions are executed, not during compilation or system calls. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since this is related to how an instruction (ssra) is handled incorrectly by QEMU, especially for larger vectors, it falls under an issue with the instruction emulation. So, the category should be 'instruction'. + +I don't think it's a syscall error because there are no system calls involved in this example. It's also not a runtime error in the sense of memory management or other general runtime issues; rather, it's specific to how instructions are processed. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with the ssra instruction in QEMU when using larger vector lengths. This is specifically related to how the instruction is handled by the emulator. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7f18a508 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided some assembly code that crashes on 64-bit Windows when running under QEMU, but works fine on real systems and VMware. Let me break down what's happening here. + +The code snippet uses a far call with the selector 0x33h. I know that in x86, a far call changes the code segment, which can switch modes if done correctly. In this case, it seems they're trying to use the "Heaven's gate" technique, which is used by some software (like certain games) to switch from 32-bit to 64-bit mode on Windows. + +In QEMU, when running a 32-bit process under WoW64, using selector 0x33h should trigger a far call that switches to 64-bit mode. However, the code crashes in QEMU with an access violation, while it works fine elsewhere. The user also mentions another version of the code with selector 0x23h, which doesn't cause issues. This suggests that the problem is specific to how QEMU handles certain far calls. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue arises from executing a specific assembly instruction (call fword ptr[esp]) and how it interacts with the environment (QEMU vs real/VMware), it's likely an instruction handling bug. The problem isn't in a system call or a runtime error but rather in how QEMU interprets this particular instruction. + +Therefore, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b1fc0c44 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to help classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided a detailed description about an issue they're encountering when using TCG (the Tiny Code Generator) versus KVM. + +The problem occurs when executing the x86 BMI instruction SHLX under TCG, which throws an Invalid Opcode exception. However, it works correctly with KVM. They have also set up a reproducible environment on GitHub, which is helpful. + +Looking at the description, they mention that the issue is related to incorrect decoding of BMI instructions. Specifically, the VEX prefix for these instructions is two bytes long, and the gen_sse function in translate.c is reaching a certain label but not handling it correctly when 'b' doesn't equal specific values. This leads to an invalid opcode error. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is clearly related to how the processor decodes and executes specific instructions (SHLX being a BMI instruction), this falls under the category of an issue with the handling of a particular instruction. + +I don't see any mention of system calls or other runtime errors unrelated to instruction execution. The focus is on the incorrect processing of the BMI instruction by TCG, which suggests that the bug is related to how QEMU's TCG handles certain instructions. + +Therefore, the appropriate category for this bug report is "instruction." +</think> + +The issue is about a problem with handling specific x86 BMI instructions in TCG, indicating an instruction-related bug. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..878044ad --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, let me try to figure this out step by step. The user has provided a bug report related to QEMU, specifically mentioning translation errors for certain x86 instructions like 'les' and 'lds'. They've also mentioned having a patch but not knowing how to apply it. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue here is about incorrect translation of specific instructions during the target i386 processing in various versions of QEMU (2.11.1, 2.10.2, etc.). Since these are x86 assembly instructions that aren't being translated correctly by the emulator, this seems to be a problem with how the instructions themselves are handled. + +I'm thinking about what each category entails. 'Instruction' would involve issues where specific CPU instructions aren't executed properly. 'Syscall' relates to system calls not working as expected, and 'runtime' covers other runtime errors that don't fall into the first two categories. Since the problem is directly tied to the translation of certain x86 instructions, it fits under the 'instruction' category. + +Also, considering they have a patch but are unsure how to apply it, this reinforces that the issue is technical and specific to instruction handling within QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes issues with translating specific x86 instructions like 'les' and 'lds'. This falls under instruction-related problems. + +**Answer: instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..dd416b91 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU's handling of the CASA instruction on SPARC qemu-user. Let me go through it step by step. + +First, the problem description says that when running a program using the CASA instruction on qemu-sparc with LEON3 CPU, it throws an "Illegal instruction" error. That means the emulator isn't recognizing or handling this specific instruction correctly. + +The user provided a patch which seems to add support for the CASA instruction. The issue arises because currently, in QEMU's code, there's no handling for this instruction when running in user space on SPARC32. The diff shows that the CASA case (0x3c) was previously conditional on either not being in user mode or targeting SPARC64, but they've commented out that condition to include it in user-space translations. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The problem is clearly about an instruction not being handled properly by QEMU's emulator. The CASA instruction isn't recognized, leading to an illegal instruction error. So this falls under an issue with how instructions are processed. + +I don't think it's a syscall or runtime issue because the error is specific to executing an instruction, not related to system calls or other runtime errors like memory management problems. + +So, the category should be "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report deals with QEMU failing to handle the CASA instruction, which leads to an illegal instruction error. This is a problem with processing a specific instruction in user space for SPARC32. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7981def7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about the PowerPC mishandling the xscmpudp instruction. Let's break it down step by step. + +First, the problem description says that the xscmpudp instruction is being mishandled. The user provided a program where they're using f64::NAN and clamping it between two 0f64 values. They expect the result to be NaN, but when compiled with VSX enabled, the assertion fails. Without VSX, it works fine because it uses fcmpu instead. + +So, what's xscmpudp? I recall that in PowerPC, especially when using VSX (Vector Scalar eXtensions), certain instructions are used for vector operations. xscmpudp is probably one of those. The issue here seems to be that QEMU isn't handling this instruction correctly when it's emitted by the compiler with VSX enabled. + +The program uses clamp on a NaN value. Clamp should return NaN if either argument is NaN, so the assertion expects is_nan() to be true. But when xscmpudp is used (with VSX), it fails, implying QEMU isn't executing that instruction as expected. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. This seems related to how an instruction is handled by the emulator. Since the problem arises specifically with the use of xscmpudp and not when using fcmpu, it points towards a problem with the instruction handling in QEMU. + +So, I think this bug falls under the "instruction" category because it's about how a specific instruction (xscmpudp) is being mishandled by QEMU. +</think> + +The issue involves incorrect handling of an instruction by QEMU. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..16e1f493 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user provided some details about an issue they're encountering while working on VSX support in libVPX using QEMU. They mentioned that when they change `vec_sub` to `vec_subs` in a specific file, the QEMU emulator throws an "uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction)" error. + +First, I need to understand what each part of this means. The error message says it's an illegal instruction, which typically happens when the CPU encounters an instruction that it doesn't recognize or can't execute. In this case, since they're using QEMU to emulate a PPC64LE (PowerPC 64-bit little-endian) environment on an x86_64 host, any issues with instructions would be related to how QEMU handles the emulation. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The user is asking which category this bug falls into. The error here is about an illegal instruction, which directly relates to a problem with how the CPU interprets or executes an instruction. So that points towards the "instruction" category. + +But I should also consider whether it's something else. Could it be a syscall issue? Well, the error message doesn't mention any system calls failing; instead, it's about an illegal instruction during execution. Runtime errors could include various issues at runtime, but since this is specifically about an instruction causing the problem, it seems more specific than a general runtime error. + +So putting it all together, the bug report describes an issue where changing a vector operation from `vec_sub` to `vec_subs` leads to QEMU encountering an illegal instruction. This suggests that either `vec_subs` isn't implemented correctly in QEMU or isn't recognized as a valid instruction for the target architecture being emulated. + +I think the category here is definitely "instruction" because it's about an unhandled or invalid instruction causing the error, not related to system calls or general runtime issues. +</think> + +The issue arises from an invalid instruction during emulation, specifically `vec_subs`, which QEMU doesn't handle correctly. This falls under the instruction handling category. + +(instruction) + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..84762d58 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report about the STGP instruction not writing the second register value to memory in QEMU. + +First, I'll read through the problem description again. The user is using Clang 16 with MTE stack protection enabled, which means they're utilizing ARM's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) for improved security and debugging of memory issues. In this setup, local variables are tagged, and the compiler often uses the STGP instruction to store two registers' values into memory. + +The specific issue is that when using the STGP instruction with operands x21, x2, [x4], only the value from x21 is being written to memory, while x2's value isn't transferred. This suggests a problem in how QEMU handles the STGP instruction. + +Looking at the code provided, there's a diff showing that the trans_STGP() function wasn't calling finalize_memop_pair(), which is done for similar instructions like STP. The user fixed this by adding two lines to call finalize_memop_pair(), which likely properly sets up the memory operation pair, ensuring both registers are written. + +Now, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +- Instruction category would involve issues where a specific CPU instruction is not being handled correctly. +- Syscall issues relate to system calls not working as expected. +- Runtime errors are more general and could be related to other runtime problems. + +In this case, the problem arises from how the STGP instruction is being translated in QEMU. The function responsible for translating the instruction wasn't handling both registers properly because it missed a crucial step (calling finalize_memop_pair()). This directly affects the execution of that specific instruction, leading to incorrect memory writes. + +Therefore, the bug is related to an instruction not functioning correctly as expected. It's not about system calls or general runtime issues but specifically about how QEMU processes the STGP instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c4b98027 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided a detailed description about floating-point operations on AArch64 hardware versus emulation in QEMU. + +The problem is that when FPCR is set to zero (which should make the FPU IEEE-754 compliant), the results of division operations differ between real hardware and QEMU. Specifically, after setting FPCR to zero, the result 'r' doesn't match the expected 'q' in QEMU, but it does on actual hardware. + +I need to categorize this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me think about each category: + +1. **Instruction**: This would involve an issue with how a specific instruction is handled by QEMU's emulator. Since the problem arises during a floating-point division (fdiv), which is an AArch64 instruction, it might fall here. + +2. **Syscall**: If the bug were related to system calls or interactions between user and kernel space, this category would apply. But in this case, the issue seems to be with the execution of an FPU instruction, not syscalls. + +3. **Runtime**: This is a catch-all for other runtime errors that don't fall into the first two categories. However, since the problem specifically points to the handling of the fdiv instruction under certain FPCR settings, it's more about instruction emulation. + +The user mentioned that using another OS also shows the same issue between real and QEMU, which suggests it's not an environment-specific problem but rather how QEMU emulates the instruction. Therefore, this is likely a faulty instruction handling in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8499fe47 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me go through each point step by step. + +First, the problem described is that when running a simple program built for POWER9 on QEMU 3.0.0 in linux-user mode, it crashes with an "illegal instruction" error. The specific instruction causing the issue is lxvwsx, which isn't supported by QEMU. + +From what I understand, lxvwsx stands for "Load Word and Splat Indexed." It's a POWER9 instruction that loads a word into each element of a vector register. The user mentions that when they implemented a workaround—using two separate instructions (load followed by splat)—the tests passed correctly. This suggests that the original issue was with QEMU not handling the lxvwsx instruction properly. + +Looking at the provided information, the bug is directly related to an instruction that QEMU doesn't support. The user's program uses this specific instruction, and since QEMU doesn't recognize it, it throws an illegal instruction error. + +The categories given are: +1. **Instruction**: Faulty instruction handling. +2. **Syscall**: Errors with system calls. +3. **Runtime**: Other runtime errors. + +Since the problem is specifically about an unsupported instruction (lxvwsx) causing the crash, this falls under the "instruction" category. The issue isn't related to any system call or other runtime environment problems but rather a missing or incorrectly handled instruction in QEMU's POWER9 implementation. +</think> + +The bug report is about QEMU not supporting a specific instruction, leading to an illegal instruction error. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9d61fd1a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out this QEMU issue that someone reported. Let's break it down step by step. + +First, the problem is happening when debugging ARM code using GDB and QEMU. The code in question uses Thumb2 instructions, specifically an if-then block. The user says that during normal execution, everything works fine, but when they're debugging, the program hangs at a particular conditional branch instruction. + +Looking at the provided disassembly: + +2000407a: push {lr} +... +2000408e: itt lt +20004090: pushlt {r0, r1} +20004092: blt.w 0x20004082 ; unpredictable <IT:lt> // <-- GDB hangs here +20004096: pop {pc} + +The issue is at the blt.w instruction. The user mentions that when r0 equals r1, the program counter doesn't get updated, so execution stops there. + +They tried to reproduce this with inline assembly in a test function. Interestingly, in their test case, they replaced the original branch address (which was pointing back into RAM) with a label "1b", which is within the same function. This worked when running normally but not during debugging. + +The key difference seems to be where the code runs: the problematic code is in RAM, while the inline assembly version runs from flash memory. The user also referenced an existing bug report on Launchpad (bug #1364501) which has similar symptoms. + +They're using QEMU 3.0.0 and arm-none-eabi-gdb 8.2. + +Now, to classify this bug under the categories given: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The issue is related to how QEMU handles a specific instruction during debugging—specifically, a conditional branch after an ITT (if-then) instruction. The problem occurs when the condition isn't met, and execution should continue past the branch. It seems like QEMU might not be correctly handling the program counter or the IT state in certain cases, especially when running from RAM versus flash. + +Since it's about how an instruction is handled during debugging, leading to a hang, this falls under an 'instruction' category. The bug report describes a faulty behavior of an instruction in QEMU. +</think> + +The problem arises because QEMU incorrectly handles the conditional branch instruction (blt.w) after an ITT when running from RAM during debugging. This issue is specifically related to how the instruction behaves in certain conditions, so it's categorized under 'instruction'. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..bd6b633c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU crashing when running in user mode due to the "stck" instruction. Let's break it down step by step. + +First, the problem occurs when using qemu-s390x in user mode. The program crashes with a SIGILL signal when executing the "stck" instruction, which is equivalent to Intel's "rdtsc". This same issue doesn't happen when running in system mode. The example provided uses a minimal test case where compiling and running the code causes the crash. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. I need to determine which one fits best. + +The bug report specifically mentions an instruction causing a problem. SIGILL is typically thrown when an invalid or unsupported instruction is executed. Since "stck" works in system mode but not user mode, it's likely that the QEMU emulator isn't handling this instruction correctly under user mode emulation. + +So, since the issue revolves around how an instruction is handled (or mishandled) by QEMU, the category should be related to instructions. It doesn't seem to involve syscalls or other runtime issues like memory management or threading problems. The problem arises during the execution of a specific machine-level instruction. + +Therefore, the appropriate classification for this bug report would fall under the "instruction" category because it's about how QEMU processes or emulates a particular CPU instruction. +</think> + +The issue is caused by an invalid instruction being handled incorrectly in user mode by QEMU. The problem arises during the execution of the "stck" instruction, which is not properly emulated in this context. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fa97b2a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user mentioned that when they try to execute code built with AVX2 instructions using QEMU's x86-64 user mode with a Skylake CPU setting, it hangs at 100% CPU usage. They also provided some warnings about TCG not supporting certain features like AVX and other SIMD-related instructions. + +Looking at the output, I see that there are several warnings from QEMU indicating that TCG (the Translation Core) doesn't support specific CPUID features. These include things like FMA, PCID, X2APIC, and most importantly, AVX and AVX2. The code in question is using AVX instructions, which the trace shows as vsubsd and vcvttsd2si. + +The stacktrace from GDB points to functions related to softfloat operations, specifically within the FPU handling of QEMU. It seems that when processing these AVX instructions, the emulator gets stuck because it doesn't have proper support for them in TCG mode. + +So, considering the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue is directly related to how the emulator handles specific instructions (AVX), which aren't supported by TCG. Therefore, this falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +The problem arises because QEMU's TCG doesn't support AVX instructions, causing it to hang when encountering them. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d32449d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about QEMU 3.1 incorrectly decoding a 'c.unimp' instruction as 'addi4spn fp, 0'. The problem arises because when handling compressed instructions, only the lower 16 bits are valid, but the current code uses a 32-bit load for ctx->opcode, which includes more bytes than it should. This causes reserved or illegal opcodes to be misdecoded. + +This sounds like an issue with how the emulator decodes and handles specific machine instructions. It's not related to system calls (syscall) because it doesn't involve interacting with the OS kernel. It also doesn't seem like a runtime error in general, as it's specifically about instruction decoding. Instead, it falls under incorrect handling of an instruction. + +So, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f6cd4081 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about qemu-user-arm crashing. Let me read through the details again carefully. + +The user mentioned that they're using qemu-user-arm version 4.0.0-rc0 for crosscompilation via a wrapper. They noticed that it crashes with SIGILL on two specific instructions. + +In the first case, the instruction is "vseleq.f64 d0, d17, d0". The second case involves "vrintm.f64 d18, d18". Both of these are ARM NEON instructions, I believe. + +They also noted that the same binaries run without issues with qemu-user-arm 3.1.0, whether from Ubuntu or self-built. So it seems like a regression introduced in version 4.0.0-rc0. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The bug is about specific ARM instructions causing crashes. It doesn't mention any system calls failing, and it's specifically related to how certain instructions are handled during execution. + +So, since the crash is happening because of an illegal instruction (SIGILL) when executing these two NEON instructions, this falls under the 'instruction' category. The issue likely stems from a problem in the emulation of these particular ARM instructions in QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes crashes due to specific ARM instructions not being handled correctly by qemu-user-arm 4.0.0-rc0. This is classified as an instruction-related issue. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ee971059 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user is experiencing an issue where qemu-ppc (user) incorrectly translates float32 arithmetic. + +Looking at the example provided, when they run their test program on a real PowerPC system, it outputs "1.401298e-45", but when using qemu-ppc, it outputs "2.802597e-45". This discrepancy suggests that there's an issue with how floating-point numbers are being handled in the emulator. + +The key point here is that the problem arises during arithmetic operations involving floats. The user mentions that this could be due to a faulty FPU instruction or issues within the printf emulation. Since it's related to arithmetic, which is part of the CPU instructions, I suspect this falls under an issue with how QEMU emulates certain instructions. + +Therefore, this bug report likely pertains to a faulty instruction being translated incorrectly by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ab97569c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided a detailed description where executing certain instructions like retf or iretq in userspace causes an incorrect error code, leading the guest OS (Linux) to think it's a kernel issue when it's actually user-mode. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The problem here is with how QEMU handles specific CPU instructions that cause page faults. The error arises during the execution of these instructions, which affects the error code pushed onto the stack. This incorrect handling leads to the guest OS misinterpreting the fault source. + +So, since it's directly related to processing certain CPU instructions and their side effects in terms of error reporting, this falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f9e1b645 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report that Axel shared. Let's break it down step by step. + +The issue is happening when running QEMU version 3.1.0 for a RISC-V 64-bit platform with Spike V1.10. The command used includes options like "-d in_asm -singlestep -D qemu_log.txt". The log shows an error at address 0x000000008002cade with the instruction bytes 051300009517e2bf, which is marked as illegal. Additionally, there's a message indicating that the disassembler disagrees with the translator over instruction decoding, and it suggests reporting this to an email address. + +So, first, I need to understand what each part of this means. QEMU is a widely-used emulator, and when it runs in single-step mode with logging, it can help debug issues by providing detailed logs of instructions being executed. The error here seems related to instruction decoding because the disassembler (which converts machine code into assembly) and the translator (which handles instruction execution) are not agreeing on how to interpret a particular set of bytes as an instruction. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. I need to determine which one fits this issue best. + +The error message mentions "illegal" instruction decoding disagreement between the disassembler and translator. This suggests that there's a problem with how QEMU is interpreting a specific machine code instruction. It's not about system calls or other runtime errors but rather about accurately translating machine code into the right assembly instructions. + +So, this seems to fall under the 'instruction' category because it's directly related to decoding individual machine instructions. The disassembler and translator are parts of QEMU responsible for handling instructions, so their disagreement implies a problem in how these components interpret or execute specific instructions. + +I don't think it's a syscall issue because there's no mention of system calls failing or being the source of the error. It's also not a general runtime error since the problem is specifically about instruction decoding, which is more about how individual instructions are handled rather than other runtime issues like memory management or process scheduling. + +Therefore, the most appropriate category here would be 'instruction'. +</think> + +The issue is related to QEMU's handling of an instruction during disassembly and translation. Since the error involves a disagreement between the disassembler and translator over decoding an instruction, it falls under the category of instruction processing rather than system calls or other runtime issues. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..54d606cf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU's translation when using REX with LAHF/SAHF instructions. The user mentioned that QEMU incorrectly translates these instructions by selecting RSP instead of AH when REX is used. They provided a patch as a workaround. + +First, I need to understand the categories given: instruction, syscall, and runtime. The issue here seems related to how QEMU handles specific CPU instructions (LAHF/SAHF with REX). These are assembly-level operations, so it's about instruction translation or processing. + +syscall would involve system calls, which doesn't seem relevant here since the problem is with instruction handling. Runtime errors could be a possibility, but usually that refers to issues during program execution rather than specific instruction translations. + +Since the problem is directly tied to how certain instructions are being translated by QEMU, the most fitting category is "instruction." The bug report points out an incorrect behavior in translating these particular CPU instructions. +</think> + +The issue pertains to the translation of specific CPU instructions (LAHF/SAHF with REX) and their handling by QEMU. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0fee9e74 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue described involves an SSE comparison operation where using an 8-bit immediate value that's too large causes a SIGILL signal in QEMU. The test case uses `cmppd xmm0,xmm0,0xd1`, and according to the documentation, only bits [2:0] are used for SSE, while AVX uses [4:0]. Currently, QEMU checks if the value is >=8 and throws an error; however, it should instead mask the higher bits. + +So, breaking this down, the problem arises from how QEMU handles the immediate value in the instruction. It's not correctly masking the bits as per the documentation, leading to an incorrect SIGILL when a larger value is used. This seems directly related to how the processor interprets the instruction and its operands, specifically the handling of immediate values. + +The categories are: + +1. Instruction: Faulty instructions described. +2. Syscall: Errors with system calls. +3. Runtime: Other runtime errors. + +Since this bug pertains to how an instruction is processed (the handling of the immediate value), it falls under the 'instruction' category. The issue isn't related to a system call or another runtime error outside of instruction processing. + +I think that's the right approach because the problem is about the CPU instruction decoding, specifically with the use of immediates in SSE operations. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue where QEMU improperly handles 8-bit immediate values in SSE comparison instructions, leading to a SIGILL signal when the value exceeds certain limits. The problem lies in how the instruction's operand is processed. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1c0b67b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided a detailed description of an issue where the ST1Q SME instruction incorrectly stores 9 bytes instead of 16 per 128-bit element. They also included steps to reproduce and some code snippets. + +First, let me understand what's happening. The problem is with how QEMU handles the ST1Q instruction in the context of SME (Scalable Matrix Extension). When this instruction runs, it should store a quadword (which I think is 128 bits) from a register to memory. However, instead of correctly writing all 16 bytes, QEMU only writes 9 and then some incorrect data. + +The user traced the issue to a specific line in the sme_helper.c file where there's an off-by-one error. They found that changing a '+1' to '+8' fixes the problem. That suggests it's a programming error in how the helper function is handling memory addresses or increments when processing the ST1Q instruction. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +- Instruction category would be if there was an issue with how a specific instruction is handled. +- Syscall is about system calls, which doesn't seem relevant here. +- Runtime issues are other errors during execution that aren't specifically tied to an instruction or syscall. + +In this case, the problem is directly related to the handling of the ST1Q SME instruction. The bug occurs because QEMU isn't correctly implementing what this instruction should do. So it's not a runtime error in general; it's specific to how this particular instruction is processed. + +Therefore, I think the correct category here is "instruction" since it's about incorrect behavior when executing a specific ARM64 SME instruction. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with QEMU incorrectly handling the ST1Q SME instruction. This falls under the "instruction" category because it pertains to how QEMU processes a specific machine instruction, resulting in incorrect data storage. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..94b31d8b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what this bug report is about and categorize it correctly. The user provided some output from running tests on both native ppc64le and under QEMU emulation, specifically using the 'denbcdq' instruction. + +First, I notice that when running on the native Power9 CPU, the outputs are different compared to when running in QEMU. For example, without any arguments, the native run gives 0x2208... which is a floating-point value, while QEMU returns 0x0000..., which looks like zero or an error code. + +The user suggests that 'denbcdq' might not be working as intended in QEMU. They also mention possible issues with endianness and whether the right data is being passed to the helper function 'helper_denbcdq'. The GEN_DFP_T_FPR_I32_Rc macro might be involved, which could relate to how floating-point registers are handled. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue is related to a specific instruction ('denbcdq') not behaving correctly in QEMU's emulation, it seems like this falls under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't a system call error or a general runtime issue but rather how the emulator handles a particular instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..210cc0a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out how to classify this bug report about qemu-x86_64. The user provided some details and an example program where QEMU is behaving incorrectly when handling certain segment prefixes in 64-bit mode. + +First, let me understand what's happening. In x86_64, according to the Intel manual, segment prefixes like DS, ES, SS, or CS should be ignored because they're not needed in 64-bit mode. The address calculation uses the FS base in this case. However, QEMU is treating these prefixes as if they were active, which leads to incorrect mapping. + +The user mentioned that both versions 4.0.0 and 4.1.0 of qemu-x86_64 have this issue. They also provided a sample program where the output differs when run natively versus in QEMU. + +Now, looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem seems to be with how QEMU handles specific instructions—namely those with segment prefixes in 64-bit mode. It's not about system calls or runtime errors in general but rather an incorrect handling of certain opcodes. + +So this is likely related to how instructions are decoded and executed. The bug report describes a faulty instruction processing, where the prefixes aren't being ignored as they should be in 64-bit mode. Therefore, it falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how specific instructions (with segment prefixes) are processed incorrectly by QEMU in x86_64 mode. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1854738 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1854738 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f6b4193f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1854738 @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report related to QEMU, and I need to classify it into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me try to break this down step by step. + +First, let's understand what the user is saying. They mention that 'ppc' (which stands for PowerPC) doesn't support something called 'mttcg', but 'ppc64' does. Then they provide a snippet of code from QEMU's configuration files. From this code, I can see different cases for various PowerPC architectures and their configurations. + +Looking at the provided code: + +- For ppc: mttcg isn't set here. +- For ppc64: mttcg=yes +- For ppc64le: Same as above with mttcg=yes +- For ppc64abi32: Also mentions setting TARGET_ABI32=y and includes various XML files, but no mention of mttcg. + +The user is stating that currently, both ppc and ppc64abi32 don't support 'mttcg', and they're looking for support. So the issue seems to be about adding or enabling mttcg for these architectures. + +Now, what does 'mttcg' stand for? I'm not entirely sure, but in QEMU, it might relate to some kind of code generation or optimization feature. Since this is part of the configuration files that set up the target architecture and associated XML descriptions for GDB, it likely pertains to how certain instructions are handled. + +The bug report doesn't mention anything about syscalls or runtime errors directly. Instead, it's focused on whether a specific feature (mttcg) is supported across different PowerPC architectures. This suggests that the problem isn't arising from an incorrect instruction execution or a system call issue but rather from the configuration and support of a particular feature in the target setup. + +So, considering the categories: + +1. **Instruction**: Relates to faulty instructions. +2. **Syscall**: Issues with system calls. +3. **Runtime**: Errors that occur during runtime, not necessarily tied to a specific instruction or syscall. + +In this case, the problem isn't about an incorrect instruction being executed or a syscall failing. Instead, it's about the support for a feature (mttcg) in different architectures. This seems more like a configuration or setup issue rather than something that happens during runtime. However, since mttcg is related to code generation and how instructions are handled, perhaps it falls under how QEMU handles instructions for these architectures. + +Wait, but the user isn't reporting an error that occurs when running something; they're pointing out that support is missing in certain configurations. That might not be a runtime issue per se but more of a setup or configuration problem. But looking back at the possible categories, 'instruction' seems to fit if it's about how instructions are handled. + +Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime issue because without mttcg support, certain operations might fail during execution. But I'm leaning towards instruction because it's about supporting specific features related to code generation for different architectures, which ties into how instructions are processed. + +Hmm, but I'm not entirely sure. The user is asking for support in the configuration, so maybe this is more of a setup issue rather than an error occurring during runtime or due to an incorrect instruction. + +Wait, perhaps the categories might be interpreted differently. If mttcg affects how code is generated and executed, then any missing support could lead to issues when running certain instructions, making it an instruction-related problem. But if it's just about enabling a feature in the configuration without immediate runtime errors, maybe it doesn't fit neatly into these categories. + +But given the options, I think 'instruction' might be the best fit because mttcg is likely related to how instructions are translated or handled by QEMU. +</think> + +The issue pertains to the support of a specific feature (mttcg) across different PowerPC architectures in QEMU's configuration. This relates to how code generation and instruction handling are set up for these targets. + +**instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7a2909f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided some details about an issue with ARM v8.3a pauth instructions not working as expected. Let's break down what they've said. + +The host is Ubuntu 19.10 on an x86_64 machine, and the QEMU version is a specific commit from master. They're testing with two pauth instructions: paciasp and autiasp. The test involves corrupting the LR (link register) just before the autiasp instruction. + +The expected behavior is that when the pointer in LR is corrupted, the autiasp should fail to authenticate it and place an invalid pointer. However, what's happening instead is that autiasp successfully authenticates the corrupted pointer, which shouldn't be possible. + +The user also mentioned adding traces in QEMU code and found that "pauth_computepac" isn't handling truncation properly. They provided examples where even with different inputs (like 0x31000000400664 vs. 0x310040008743ec), the top_bit and bot_bit remain the same, which is incorrect because they should vary based on the input. + +So, looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The issue seems to be related to how QEMU handles specific ARM instructions (pauth in this case). The problem arises during the execution of these instructions, leading to incorrect behavior. It's not a syscall error or something that happens at runtime unrelated to instruction processing. + +Therefore, it should fall under the "instruction" category because the bug is about the faulty handling of certain instructions by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..626b0cee --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU not handling the VMOVDQU instruction correctly for YMM registers. The user provided some code and test results showing that when using YMM registers (which are 32 bytes), only the first 16 bytes are copied properly. They tested with both XMM and YMM, and XMM works fine but YMM doesn't. + +The problem seems to be in the translation of the instruction into TCG code. The function `gen_ldo_env_A0` is used for loading data from memory into a register. Looking at that function, it's only handling 8 bytes twice, which adds up to 16 bytes total. That explains why only half of the YMM register gets updated. + +I'm thinking about where this issue falls in terms of classification. The categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. This seems like an instruction-level problem because it's about how a specific AVX instruction (VMOVDQU) is being translated or executed incorrectly by QEMU. It's not related to system calls or runtime errors outside of instruction handling. + +So the category should be "instruction" since it's directly tied to how the VMOVDQU instruction is processed for YMM registers. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5f7bf050 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out this problem. The user mentioned that there's an issue with the AArch64 EXT instruction for V registers in QEMU. Specifically, when executing an EXT instruction on SVE registers, bits above 128 should be cleared to zero but aren't. So, it's a bug in how QEMU handles this instruction. + +First, I need to understand what category this falls into. The options are "instruction," which is about faulty instructions; "syscall," which relates to system calls; and "runtime," for other runtime errors. + +The issue here is clearly related to the processing of an instruction—EXT—in a specific context (SVE registers). It's not a problem with system calls or a general runtime error. Instead, it's about how QEMU interprets and executes this particular instruction, leading to incorrect behavior in the register bits. + +So, classifying it under "instruction" makes sense because it's about the handling of an instruction causing unexpected results. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how the EXT instruction is handled by QEMU. This falls under an error related to processing an instruction. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5d8165da --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU's handling of the BKPT instruction in arm linux-user mode. The user provided a detailed explanation and a test case where the arm version doesn't trigger SIGTRAP like the aarch64 does. + +First, looking at the problem: when running the arm binary under qemu-arm, it doesn't stop at the BKPT instruction as expected. Instead of sending SIGTRAP, it continues executing and prints "done". The issue seems to be in how QEMU handles the exception type EXCP_BKPT. + +The bug report explains that in cpu-loop.c for arm, EXCP_BKPT is treated similarly to EXCP_SWI. This means instead of delivering a trap signal, it's incorrectly handling it as a syscall or semihosting call. The user points out that this behavior was from an older commit and that the handling for semihosting has moved elsewhere, so now BKPT should be handled differently. + +The correct behavior is that BKPT should cause a SIGTRAP, like how EXCP_DEBUG does on aarch64. So the problem lies in how exceptions are processed in QEMU's arm code. + +Now, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +- Instruction: This relates to faulty instructions or incorrect handling of CPU instructions. +- Syscall: Issues with system calls. +- Runtime: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +In this case, the issue is about how an instruction (BKPT) is handled. The code treats BKPT as a syscall when it shouldn't. It's more about the correct processing of an exception caused by a specific instruction. So, it falls under "instruction". + +I think the category should be 'instruction' because it's about how QEMU handles a particular CPU instruction leading to incorrect exception handling. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..02f0a4fc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out what category this QEMU bug falls into. The user provided some code that crashes QEMU with specific errors. Let's break it down step by step. + +First, looking at the error messages: one mentions "tcg fatal error" and another points to a failed assertion related to `have_mmap_lock()`. TCG stands for Tiny Code Generator, which is part of QEMU used for emulating CPU instructions when KVM isn't available. So it's likely an issue during instruction emulation. + +The code in question is a main function that defines a buffer of bytes and then casts it to a function pointer and calls it. The buffer contains machine code instructions, so the program is executing these bytes as if they were executable code. + +Looking at the byte sequence, I can see various opcodes like `0x2E` (CS segment override), `0xE9` (jump), and several AVX/VMX instructions such as `vpmovzxbd`, `vroundps`, etc. These are advanced x86 instructions that might have specific behaviors or dependencies. + +When this code is run under QEMU, it crashes. The fact that it's related to TCG suggests that the issue arises during the execution of these instructions in the emulator. Since the problem occurs when executing specific machine code, it points towards an instruction handling bug within QEMU's TCG. + +Now, considering the categories: "instruction" refers to issues with how individual CPU instructions are handled. "syscall" would involve system calls, which doesn't seem relevant here since the crash isn't about a system call failing but rather during execution of user-space code. "runtime" is for other runtime errors not covered by the first two. + +Given that the crash occurs when executing specific opcodes and relates to TCG's instruction emulation, this bug falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug report involves issues with how QEMU handles certain machine code instructions during execution, leading to a fatal error in the Tiny Code Generator. This points to an issue with handling specific instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3de77024 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report related to QEMU, specifically involving a crash when running glxgears under certain conditions. Let me try to break down what's happening here. + +The user mentions that they're working on implementing drm IOCTLs in their own branch of QEMU and noticed that glxgears crashes with SIGILL during GLXSwapBuffers(). They spent about two weeks tracing the call stack, only to find a bad shift instruction. The original intention was to generate an 'shr_i64' which would translate to 'RLDICL' on PPC64LE, but instead, it's ending up with an invalid instruction FFFFFFE0 because the shift count (c) is -1. + +Wait, how does c become -1? I know that in some architectures, shift counts are modulo the number of bits. For example, shifting a 64-bit register by more than 63 would wrap around or cause undefined behavior. But getting a negative shift count like -1 seems odd because shift operations usually don't handle negative counts well. + +The user tried disabling constant folding for arithmetic instructions and found that this resolved the issue. Constant folding is an optimization where expressions with known values are precomputed during compilation, which can lead to more efficient code but might cause issues if not handled correctly, especially when dealing with edge cases like invalid shifts. + +They then re-enabled constant folding on various instructions but found that enabling it on subtraction caused the bug to reappear. That's interesting because subtraction itself doesn't directly relate to shifting, unless there's an optimization path where a subtraction leads to an incorrect value being used as a shift count elsewhere. + +So putting this together: When constant folding is applied during subtraction operations, it might be producing values that later get incorrectly used in shift instructions. For example, maybe a subtraction is resulting in -1, and then that result is being passed into a shift instruction without proper bounds checking or sign handling, leading to an invalid shift count. + +Since the problem arises from how instructions are generated during code optimization (specifically constant folding), this seems like an issue with the way QEMU's translator or optimizer handles certain arithmetic operations. The resulting invalid instruction causes a SIGILL, which is an illegal instruction trap, hence a runtime error. + +Therefore, the bug falls under the 'instruction' category because it involves a faulty generated instruction causing the crash. +</think> + +The issue arises from an incorrect shift instruction being generated due to constant folding optimizations leading to an invalid value (-1) for the shift count. This results in an illegal instruction when executed. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..33332f4d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I have this problem where when I run a math function on an m68k Linux user mode under QEMU, it throws an "Illegal instruction" error. The user provided steps to reproduce and mentioned that other targets don't have this issue. Let me try to figure out what's going on here. + +First, looking at the code in math-example.c. It seems to be profiling the expm1f function. They compile it with m68k-linux-gnu-gcc using -O2 optimization and static linking. Then they run it under QEMU for m68k Linux user mode. + +The error happens when executing the compiled binary, resulting in an illegal instruction. The expected output is some profiling results without any errors. So why would this happen specifically on m68k? + +I remember that different architectures have different sets of instructions. Maybe the code generated by GCC includes instructions that QEMU's m68k emulator doesn't support or handle correctly. + +Looking into it, I recall that sometimes certain floating-point operations or specific math functions can cause issues if the emulator doesn't fully implement all instructions. In this case, expm1f is a math function that might rely on some specific instruction set extensions. + +Another possibility is that the compiled binary uses an FPU instruction that QEMU's m68k emulation isn't handling properly. The 68000 series has its own floating-point unit instructions, and if QEMU doesn't emulate them correctly, it could lead to illegal instruction errors. + +So, since the error message points to an illegal instruction during execution, it's likely related to how the emulator processes certain instructions. It might not be a problem with the syscall or runtime environment but rather specific to the CPU instruction handling in QEMU. + +Therefore, this issue falls under the "instruction" category because it's about an invalid or unsupported instruction being executed. +</think> + +The bug is caused by an instruction that the m68k emulator doesn't handle correctly. The error occurs during execution of a generated instruction, indicating a problem with how the emulator processes certain instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7e5b8bd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to figure out how to classify this bug report about the BICS instruction in QEMU's translate-a64.c file. The user mentioned that when they looked at the code, it didn't seem like the gen_logic_CC function was called for BICS, which means the flags aren't being set correctly. They think it might be a bug but haven't created a test case yet. + +First, I'll recall what each category means. "Instruction" is about faulty instructions in the bug report. "Syscall" relates to errors with system calls. "Runtime" covers other runtime issues that don't fall into the first two categories. + +In this case, the issue is specifically about how an instruction (BICS) isn't setting flags properly. This seems to be a problem related to the handling of an instruction within the CPU emulator part of QEMU. The user points out that the code doesn't call gen_logic_CC for BICS, which suggests it's not updating the condition flags as required by the architecture. + +I don't see any mention of system calls here, so "syscall" isn't relevant. It's also more specific than a general runtime error because it's about instruction execution. Therefore, this should fall under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug report is about an issue with how the BICS instruction is handled in QEMU, specifically regarding the setting of flags. This falls under the classification related to instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ec69db7c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. The issue is about the fmul8x16 instruction not working correctly when emulating SPARC architectures, specifically UltraSparc II. Let me break down what's happening here. + +First, the user provided a test program that checks all possible combinations of 16-bit and 8-bit inputs using the fmul8x16 instruction. When they run this on real hardware (UltraSparc II), everything works as expected—all tests pass. However, when they use QEMU (both sparc64 and sparc32plus), almost all tests fail, with results being zero. + +Looking at the problem description, it's clear that the issue is with how QEMU handles this specific instruction. The user tried other VIS instructions, which worked fine, so it's isolated to fmul8x16. This points towards a bug in the emulation of that particular instruction rather than a broader issue with the system calls or runtime environment. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, and runtime. Since the problem is directly related to how an instruction (fmul8x16) is executed and not with any system call or general runtime behavior, it falls under the 'instruction' category. The fact that other instructions work correctly further supports this classification. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with a specific instruction in QEMU's SPARC emulation. Since the problem arises from incorrect handling of the `fmul8x16` instruction, the appropriate category is: + +**instruction** + +(instruction) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..13ae53fd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user provided some logs from two different QEMU versions and described an issue where their binary crashes with SIGILL despite having a registered signal handler. + +First, looking at the logs, in version 2.5.0, after reading the input 'flag{', it writes "wrong!" and then calls _llseek with some invalid parameters, leading to an exit. But in version 2.11.1, after the same input, QEMU throws a SIGILL signal which isn't caught, causing a core dump. + +The problem seems related to how QEMU handles illegal instructions. The binary triggers an illegal instruction at address 0x10a68. In older QEMU (2.5.0), it doesn't reach that point because the program exits early. But in 2.11.1, the signal isn't being caught properly. + +The user mentioned that the binary has a SIGILL handler registered, so when the illegal instruction occurs, it should call this handler instead of crashing. However, QEMU is not passing this correctly, leading to an uncaught signal. + +This sounds like an issue with how signals are handled in the emulator, specifically the SIGILL signal which is related to instructions that the CPU can't execute. So the bug is about handling an instruction-related error, making it fall under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +The bug report describes a situation where the QEMU emulator incorrectly handles the SIGILL signal, leading to a crash despite the program having registered a handler for this signal. The issue arises during the execution of an illegal instruction in the binary, which should have been caught by the registered handler but instead causes QEMU to terminate. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2ae85e0e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the report again carefully. + +The user is reporting an issue with QEMU not handling ARM32 instructions correctly regarding alignment checks. They mention specific instructions like LDRD and STRD which should check for word alignment regardless of the SCTLR.A setting. According to ARM documentation, these instructions should raise an alignment fault if the address isn't aligned properly. + +In their test case, they used the instruction LDRD r0,[pc,#1] at VA 0x10240, and QEMU didn't raise an alignment fault as expected—it loaded the data from an unaligned address without issue. They're suggesting that QEMU should check for this during translation to TCG and raise a SIGBUS signal if the address is unaligned. + +Now, thinking about the categories: + +- Instruction would relate to issues with how specific instructions are handled. +- Syscall relates to system calls going wrong. +- Runtime covers other runtime errors not related to instructions or syscalls. + +Since this issue revolves around how certain ARM32 instructions (like LDRD) are being translated and executed, it seems like the problem is with how these specific instructions are handled by QEMU. The user suggests adding a check during translation to TCG if the address is unaligned, which directly affects instruction execution. + +Therefore, this bug report falls under the 'instruction' category because it's about incorrect handling of specific ARM32 instructions related to alignment checks. +</think> + +The issue pertains to how specific ARM32 instructions handle alignment, requiring a fix in their translation and execution. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..89b00bcb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out how to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me start by understanding the problem described. + +The user is trying to run PostgreSQL/Greenplum inside a Docker container using qemu-aarch64-static on CentOS 7 x86_64 as the host. The issue arises with spinlocks causing panics and getting stuck. They've narrowed it down to the spinlock implementation, which works fine on a physical ARM64 server but not in this setup. + +The test code they wrote also shows that the spinlock is timing out, indicating some kind of deadlock or failure to acquire the lock correctly. The logs show processes repeatedly trying to acquire the lock with values stuck at 1, suggesting an issue with how the locks are being handled. + +Now, looking into why this might be happening: the spinlock uses atomic operations. In their code, they're using `test_and_set` which is a low-level atomic operation. If this isn't working as expected under qemu, it could be due to incorrect handling of these atomic instructions by the emulator. + +The possible categories are: + +1. **Instruction**: Faulty instruction in the bug report. +2. **Syscall**: Error with a system call. +3. **Runtime**: Other runtime errors. + +Since the problem is related to an atomic operation (`test_and_set`), which is an assembly-level instruction, and the issue occurs specifically when running under qemu (emulating ARM64 on x86_64), it's likely that qemu isn't correctly emulating this instruction. Therefore, the bug is with how qemu handles certain instructions. + +I don't see any mention of system calls failing; the issue seems to be with the atomic operations themselves. So, it doesn't fall under syscall. It also isn't a general runtime error but rather something specific to an instruction's handling. Hence, the category should be "instruction." +</think> + +The bug is due to the incorrect emulation of the `test_and_set` atomic instruction by qemu, leading to spinlock issues. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..39e443c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I've got this bug report about QEMU 8.0.0 causing a segfault when running a test program that uses gcov for coverage. Let me try to understand what's going on here. + +The user provided some debug output from GDB. They set a breakpoint and looked at the disassembly. The instruction in question is "str x8, [x9, #2512]", which is an ARM64 store instruction. It looks like they're trying to write the value of register x8 (which is 1) into memory at address x9 plus 2512. + +When they checked the memory location after stepping through this instruction, it still showed as zero. Then, using llvm-objdump, they found that the target address corresponds to a gcov counter (__llvm_gcov_ctr.5), which is in the .bss section and has a size of 8 bytes. + +The user also noted that when running with QEMU 6.2.0, there's no segfault at this point, though there might be another issue later on due to their test program's bug. + +So, what's causing the segfault? The fact that it works in 6.2.0 but not in 8.0.0 suggests a regression introduced in QEMU between these versions. Since the error occurs during a memory write operation, it could be related to how QEMU handles certain instructions or memory accesses. + +Looking at the instruction: "str x8, [x9, #2512]" is trying to write 4 bytes (since x8 is a 64-bit register but str defaults to 32 bits unless specified otherwise). The target address is in .bss, which should be writable. However, maybe QEMU isn't handling the alignment or the size correctly. + +Another angle: perhaps QEMU's memory management for .bss or specific sections has changed, causing the emulator to misbehave when writing to certain addresses. Or maybe it's an issue with how the gcov counters are initialized or accessed in this version of QEMU. + +The fact that the same code works on 6.2.0 but not on 8.0.0 points towards a change in QEMU's handling of these operations. It could be related to how memory is mapped, how instructions are emulated, or some other runtime aspect. + +I think this falls under an "instruction" issue because the problem occurs during the execution of a specific instruction (str) and seems to be related to how QEMU processes that instruction in terms of memory access. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where executing a specific store instruction in QEMU 8.0.0 leads to a segmentation fault, which does not occur in earlier versions like 6.2.0. This suggests a problem with how the instruction is being handled. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ab833a56 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU emulation of the fmadds instruction on powerpc64le. The user provided some context and results from running their test program both on real hardware and under different QEMU versions. + +First, let's break down what's happening here. They have a C program called test-fmadds.c that tests the fmadds instruction, which I believe is related to floating-point operations. On real hardware (POWER8E), it runs correctly and returns 0. But when they run the same program under QEMU emulation on different Linux distributions, it's returning 32 instead of 0. + +They also checked using 'nm --dynamic qemu-system-ppc64 | grep fma' and found that QEMU isn't using the fmaf() or fma() functions from the host system's libc. However, those functions are working fine in the host's glibc, so it's not a problem with the host library. + +Now, I need to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me think about each category. + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues where QEMU is incorrectly handling specific CPU instructions. Since the problem is specifically with fmadds, which is an instruction, this seems relevant. + +- **Syscall**: This relates to errors when making system calls. The issue here doesn't mention any syscalls failing, so I don't think it's related to that. + +- **Runtime**: These are other runtime errors not necessarily tied to specific instructions or syscalls. However, since the problem is directly linked to an instruction (fmadds), this might be more about how QEMU emulates that instruction. + +Given all of this, the issue seems to stem from QEMU's emulation of the fmadds instruction being incorrect. It's not using the correct host functions and therefore behaves differently than real hardware. +</think> + +The bug is related to how QEMU handles the fmadds instruction, indicating an issue in the emulator's instruction handling. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..09481a76 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU and WINE. The user mentioned that certain 16-bit Windows programs crash when run under QEMU's i386-linux-user emulator, specifically showing an error where sigcontext->trapno is -1. They also noted that these programs work fine on a native i386 system. + +The issue seems to be related to how exceptions are handled in WINE. The programs make DOS calls using int 21h, which should trigger an exception that WINE handles by patching the code with its own int21h handling. However, instead of getting the expected trap number, it's -1, causing WINE to treat it as an unhandled error. + +I'm trying to figure out why this is happening. The user isn't sure if it's because of privileged instructions not being handled in 16-bit mode or another illegal instruction case. They provided a QEMU commit reference and mentioned that the behavior was present in version 5.2.0. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The bug report doesn't mention a specific system call failing but rather an issue with exception handling during DOS calls (int 21h). The problem arises when executing these instructions under QEMU's emulator, leading to incorrect trap numbers in sigcontext. This affects how WINE handles the exceptions. + +So, it seems like the issue is related to how QEMU handles certain instructions, specifically the int instruction used for system calls. Since this leads to an unexpected trap number and causes WINE to mishandle the exception, it's likely a problem with how these specific instructions are being emulated or handled in the emulator. Therefore, the category would be 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where QEMU incorrectly handles the int 21h instruction used for DOS calls, leading to incorrect trap numbers and causing WINE to mishandle exceptions. This is related to how specific instructions are being processed by QEMU. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f794e450 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out why when I run this binary called a.out_err using QEMU, it's giving me an "Illegal instruction" error and crashing. But when I use GDB to remote-debug the same program, it works fine without any issues. That's pretty confusing because if GDB is working, maybe there's something specific about how QEMU is handling things that's causing the problem. + +First, let me look at the details provided. The binary is an ELF32 file for ARM architecture, little-endian, using soft-float ABI. The entry point is at 0x8220. QEMU version is 4.0.0, which is a bit old but still maintained. + +The error message from QEMU says "uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction) but gdb remote-debug exited normally." That suggests that when running under GDB, the program doesn't hit this illegal instruction, but when run standalone in QEMU, it does. Hmm, why would that be? + +I remember that sometimes debuggers can affect how a program runs, especially regarding certain instructions or memory accesses. Maybe there's an instruction that only gets executed when not debugging, which causes QEMU to crash. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The error is about an illegal instruction, so it seems like it should fall under 'instruction'. But I need to make sure it's not a different category. + +If it were a syscall issue, running under GDB might still hit the same problem because syscalls are handled by the kernel regardless of debugging. Since GDB works, maybe it's not a syscall problem. Similarly, runtime issues could be many things, but since the error is specifically about an illegal instruction, that points more towards an 'instruction' category. + +I'm also thinking about possible causes like CPU features or missing instructions. Maybe the binary uses an ARM instruction that QEMU doesn't support correctly in non-debug mode, but GDB somehow masks it. Or perhaps when running under GDB, certain optimizations are disabled, preventing the problematic code from being executed. + +Another angle: could there be a timing issue where without GDB's介入, some initialization isn't done properly? But since the error is an illegal instruction, that makes me think it's more about the CPU executing something invalid rather than missing initializations. + +So putting it all together, the main symptom is an illegal instruction causing QEMU to crash, which doesn't happen under GDB. This points towards a problem with how certain instructions are handled in QEMU when not being debugged, making 'instruction' the most likely category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..35dfbd0a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU's behavior with the cmpxchg instruction. Let me start by understanding what's going on here. + +The user provided a C program that uses inline assembly to perform a cmpxchg operation. The expected result is that if the values are equal, the accumulator (RAX) should remain unchanged. On a real CPU, when they run this code, RAX stays as 0x1234567812345678, which makes sense because cmpxchg doesn't modify the register in that case. + +But when running the same program under QEMU's x86_64 TCG (Translation Cache Generic), the result is different. RAX becomes 0x12345678, which looks like only the lower half of the original value. This suggests that QEMU is zero-extending EAX to RAX instead of keeping the full 64 bits. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue here seems to be with how QEMU handles the cmpxchg instruction. Specifically, it's not matching real CPU behavior because of an incorrect handling of the registers, probably during translation or execution of that instruction. + +So, this isn't a problem with a system call (syscall) or something happening at runtime unrelated to specific instructions (runtime). Instead, it's directly about how QEMU processes the cmpxchg instruction. Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report concerns incorrect handling of the cmpxchg instruction in QEMU, leading to unexpected register behavior. This falls under the category of an instruction issue. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e305bde2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU and an issue with the SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction causing an FPU exception when running FreeBSD. The user is using QEMU 5.2 with TCG acceleration and a Nehalem CPU setting. + +From what I understand, when they run FreeBSD under these conditions, executing the crc32 instruction triggers an exception. They attached GDB and found it's happening in translate.c line 3067. That part of the code checks if the TS flag is set and raises an exception if it is. But according to Intel's documentation (page 61 of their manual), the CRC32 instruction should work regardless of the TS bit's state. + +So, the bug seems related to how QEMU handles the crc32 instruction in TCG mode. Specifically, it incorrectly checks for the TS flag and raises an exception when it shouldn't. This is causing the FPU exception because the code assumes that the instruction requires FPU context even when it doesn't. + +Now, categorizing this bug: The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue revolves around how a specific instruction (crc32) is handled by QEMU's TCG translator, it falls under the "instruction" category. It's not related to syscalls or general runtime errors but rather an incorrect handling of an instruction. +</think> + +The bug pertains to how QEMU handles the CRC32 instruction in TCG mode, leading to an unnecessary FPU exception despite Intel's documentation. This is a problem with instruction execution. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5651d3c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU's Thumb 32 STR instruction decoding issue. The user provided a detailed explanation and even included some machine code and symbols involved. + +First, I'll read through the problem description again to make sure I understand it correctly. It seems that there's an issue with how QEMU handles a specific STR instruction in Thumb32 mode. The machine code given is 0xf84f0ddd, which decodes into certain register operations and flags (Rn, Rt, P, U, W). According to the user, when Rn is '1111', it should be an undefined instruction, causing a segmentation fault or similar error. However, QEMU isn't checking this properly, leading to a bug. + +Now, looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue here revolves around how the CPU instruction (STR) is being decoded and handled by QEMU. Specifically, it's about an incorrect handling of a particular instruction's encoding which should result in an undefined state but isn't being properly detected. + +So, this falls under the 'instruction' category because it's directly related to how a specific machine instruction is processed. It's not a syscall issue since there's no mention of system calls going wrong. Neither is it a general runtime error; rather, it's an error in handling an instruction during execution. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue with the decoding of a specific Thumb32 instruction (STR) leading to improper behavior in QEMU. This is directly related to how instructions are processed. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..840a9ad8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user mentioned an issue with the BLX instruction in ARMv7 Thumb mode where H is set to '1', causing it to be undefined according to the manual. However, QEMU doesn't check this constraint in the trans_BLX_i function. + +Hmm, let's break it down. The bug report talks about a specific instruction (BLX) and how QEMU isn't handling an edge case correctly. Since it's related to how instructions are processed, especially an undefined condition not being checked, this seems like it falls under an instruction-level issue. + +I don't think it's a syscall error because the problem isn't with system calls but rather with the processor executing instructions. It also doesn't seem runtime-related in terms of general runtime errors; instead, it's specific to how a particular instruction is being handled. + +So, the category here should be "instruction" since it directly relates to an incorrect handling of a CPU instruction. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue with how QEMU handles a specific instruction (BLX) when certain conditions are met. It points out that QEMU doesn't check for an undefined case specified in the ARMv7 manual, leading to potential errors in instruction execution. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..da9b9177 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm looking at this bug report from Muhui about QEMU crashing when executing the WFI instruction. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, the user provided the bytecode 0xe320f003 for the WFI instruction. They mentioned that after executing this instruction, QEMU exits with an unhandled CPU exception. The crash log shows various register values and a PSR (Program Status Register) indicating the CPU was in user mode when it happened. + +WFI stands for Wait For Interrupt and is commonly used to put the processor into a low-power state until an interrupt occurs. The fact that QEMU is crashing suggests there's an issue with how this instruction is being handled by the emulator. + +Now, considering the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem arises directly from executing a specific instruction (WFI), it seems to be related to how that instruction is processed. It's not about a system call error because WFI doesn't involve syscalls; it's a CPU-level operation. It also doesn't seem like a general runtime issue because the crash occurs specifically when this instruction runs. + +So, I'm leaning towards the "instruction" category because the bug report revolves around the handling of the WFI instruction within QEMU. +</think> + +The bug is related to how QEMU handles the WFI instruction, which is an ARM instruction. The crash occurs during execution of this specific instruction, indicating a problem with instruction processing. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f639db29 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is encountering an issue when running their a.out_err binary under QEMU. They get a core dump with the message "qemu: uncaught target signal 5 (Trace/breakpoint trap)". However, when they use GDB for remote debugging, the program exits normally without any issues. + +First, I need to understand what each of these tools is doing. QEMU is an emulator that runs binaries for different architectures, in this case, a 32-bit ARM binary. When the user says it's core dumping, that suggests something unexpected is happening during execution, causing the program to crash. + +Looking at the provided disassembly of the binary, I see that there's a 'bkpt' instruction at address 0xa608. The 'bkpt' instruction in ARM is used for debugging purposes and generates a software breakpoint exception. In normal circumstances, when QEMU runs this instruction without a debugger attached, it should generate a SIGTRAP signal to the host process, which would typically cause a core dump if not handled. + +However, the user mentioned that when using GDB for remote debugging, everything works fine. That makes sense because GDB catches these breakpoints and allows the user to debug, so no crash occurs. But without GDB attached, QEMU should handle the breakpoint in some way, perhaps by ignoring it or translating it correctly into a signal. + +The user also checked a bug report on Launchpad (bug 1873898) related to QEMU's handling of BKPT instructions and found that the issue was supposed to be fixed. However, they're still experiencing problems with core dumps, which suggests either the fix isn't applied in their version of QEMU or there's a different underlying issue. + +Looking at the ELF header information provided, the binary is indeed a 32-bit ARM executable with specific ABI flags. The entry point is at address 0xa603, and the program headers look correct. This tells me that the binary itself is correctly formatted for an ARM target. + +The QEMU version they're using is 6.2.0, which might be older or newer than the version where the bug was fixed. If the bug was fixed in a later version, they might need to update their QEMU installation. Alternatively, if the issue persists despite the fix being applied, there could be another problem. + +Considering possible categories for this bug: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue seems to revolve around how QEMU handles the 'bkpt' instruction when not running under a debugger. Since the problem arises during execution due to an unhandled exception generated by an ARM instruction (BKPT), it falls under the category of an instruction-related fault. + +So, putting it all together: the bug is likely due to QEMU's incorrect handling of the BKPT instruction in 32-bit ARM Linux-user mode when no debugger is attached. This causes a SIGTRAP signal that isn't properly managed, leading to a core dump. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6af7710b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I have this problem where QEMU crashes when running certain arithmetic operations on the m68k target. The user provided some code examples that cause this crash. Let me try to figure out what's going on here. + +First, looking at the C program they provided: it divides INT_MIN by a divisor, which is -1 in their example. On many systems, dividing INT_MIN by -1 can cause issues because INT_MIN is the smallest integer, and dividing it might not fit into the same type without causing an overflow or undefined behavior. + +The second example is an assembly snippet using m68k instructions: move.l #-2147483648,%d0; move.l #-1,%d1; divsl.l %d1,%d1:%d0. The number -2147483648 is indeed INT_MIN for a 32-bit integer, which is the same as in the C example. + +So, both examples are causing a division operation that might result in an overflow or trap because dividing the minimum integer by -1 could exceed the representable range. Now, in QEMU, when such operations occur, it's supposed to handle traps or exceptions gracefully, but instead, it crashes with SIGFPE (Floating Point Exception). That suggests there's a problem with how QEMU handles these arithmetic operations that trap. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue seems related to how QEMU handles specific instructions, particularly when they cause exceptions like division by zero or overflow. The crash is due to an unhandled exception in the guest causing QEMU itself to crash instead of properly trapping and handling it. + +So, this isn't about a faulty syscall or a general runtime error; it's specifically about how certain instructions are handled during execution. Therefore, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug is caused by how QEMU handles specific arithmetic operations that result in traps on the m68k target, leading to a crash instead of proper exception handling. + +(instruction) + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fe744c07 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user provided a detailed report about an incorrect result from the SME SMOPA instruction in QEMU. They included code examples and the output they're getting versus what they expect. + +First, let's break down what's happening. The problem is with the SMOPA instruction in AArch64 when using SME (Scalable Matrix Extension). The user provided a Python example that calculates an outer product matrix correctly. Then, their C code uses this same logic but through assembly instructions, and it's giving incorrect results. + +Looking at the output from QEMU, some elements are wrong or zeroed out. For instance, in the first row, 134 is replaced with 478, and so on. The third row seems partially correct, while others are zeros. This suggests that either the data isn't being stored correctly into memory or there's an issue with how the SMOPA instruction processes the data. + +The user is using QEMU to run their code, which indicates that this might be a problem in the emulator rather than hardware. Since they're targeting AArch64 and SME128, it's likely related to how QEMU implements these instructions. + +Considering the categories: 'instruction' relates to faulty instruction descriptions, 'syscall' is about system calls, and 'runtime' covers other runtime errors. Here, the issue arises during the execution of a specific instruction (SMOPA), which isn't behaving as expected. So it's more likely an issue with how QEMU handles that instruction rather than a runtime error or syscall problem. + +Therefore, this bug is probably classified under 'instruction'. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where the SMOPA instruction in QEMU produces incorrect results. This suggests a problem with how the instruction is implemented in the emulator. + +(instruction) + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9c648bc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about the `sqshrn` instruction failing in QEMU but passing on real hardware. Let's see what each category means. + +First, the problem is related to an assembly instruction, specifically `sqshrn`. That makes me think it's about how instructions are emulated, which falls under "instruction" issues. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce: they built a test and ran it in QEMU where two tests failed. The errors show incorrect values being returned compared to what's expected. Since real hardware passes these tests, the issue is likely with how QEMU handles this instruction. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Here, the problem isn't about system calls (syscall) nor a general runtime error but specifically an issue with emulating a particular instruction. So it fits under "instruction". + +I think that's the correct classification because the bug is directly tied to how QEMU emulates `sqshrn`, leading to test failures. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where the `sqshrn` instruction isn't being emulated correctly in QEMU, causing test failures. This falls under the "instruction" category as it's related to faulty instruction emulation. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3ed10566 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report as either 'instruction', 'syscall', or 'runtime'. Let's break down what the user provided. + +The problem occurs when running code using QEMU on a LoongArch host. The issue is with LSX vector instructions getting wrong results. They built Linux-user for LoongArch, ran some tests, and observed incorrect outputs compared to when they run the same code natively or under QEMU on x86_64. + +First, I think about what each category entails: + +1. **Instruction**: This would involve a bug where specific instructions are mishandled by QEMU. Since LSX is mentioned specifically, it's possible that QEMU isn't emulating these vector instructions correctly. + +2. **Syscall**: This relates to errors in system calls. The problem here doesn't mention any issues with system calls but rather incorrect results from computations. + +3. **Runtime**: This covers other runtime errors not falling into the above categories. However, since the issue is specifically about instruction handling, it's more likely related to instructions than a general runtime error. + +Given that the problem arises during vector operations using LSX instructions and the output differs when run under QEMU versus native or another architecture, this points towards an issue with how QEMU handles these specific instructions. Therefore, it's most likely an 'instruction' category bug. +</think> + +The bug is related to incorrect handling of specific vector instructions (LSX) in QEMU, which falls under instruction-level issues. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cbb8ffb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about an issue with the BLSI instruction in QEMU. The user provided some code and explained that when they run their example binary on native hardware versus in QEMU, they get different return codes. Specifically, the CF flag isn't being computed correctly after the BLSI instruction. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me think about each category: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve a problem with how QEMU handles specific CPU instructions. If an instruction is causing incorrect results in the registers or flags, that falls under this category. + +- **Syscall**: This relates to system calls, which are functions provided by the OS kernel when called from user space. The issue here doesn't mention any syscalls going wrong; it's about a specific instruction and flags. + +- **Runtime**: This is for general runtime errors not directly tied to instructions or syscalls. For example, memory management issues or threading problems. But this bug seems to be specifically about an instruction's behavior. + +The problem occurs during the execution of the BLSI instruction, which affects the CF flag in the RFLAGS register. The native run and QEMU run produce different results, indicating that QEMU isn't emulating the BLSI instruction correctly regarding the CF computation. + +Since the issue is tied directly to how an instruction (BLSI) is handled, causing incorrect flags, this should be categorized under "instruction." It's not related to syscalls or general runtime issues but rather a specific problem with instruction execution. +</think> + +The bug report details an issue where the BLSI instruction incorrectly computes the CF flag in QEMU. Since it pertains to how an instruction is handled by the emulator, the correct category is: + +**instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c91af609 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about a RISC-V RVV fractional LMUL check being wrong as part of QEMU. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Hmm, RISC-V is an open-source instruction set architecture, and RVV stands for RISC-V Vector Extension. LMUL refers to the lane multiplication factor in vector instructions, which determines how many elements a vector register can hold. A fractional LMUL means that each element is smaller than the base data type, allowing more elements per vector. + +The bug mentions an issue with the fractional LMUL check. This likely relates to how the vector instructions are handled in QEMU's emulation of RISC-V processors. Since it's about a specific aspect of instruction handling—vector operations and their configuration—the problem is probably related to how these instructions are being executed or emulated. + +I'm thinking that this falls under 'instruction' because it's directly tied to how the vector instructions with specific LMUL settings are processed by QEMU. It's not a system call issue, nor is it a general runtime error unrelated to instruction handling. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..25457c69 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out how to classify this bug report about qemu-x86_64 crashing with an "Illegal Instruction" when running SPEC CPU 2017 benchmarks. Let's break it down step by step. + +First, the user describes that they're running Perlbench from the SPEC suite using qemu-x86_64 and encountering crashes. They've tried this on three machines, two of which resulted in crashes. The error message is "Illegal instruction," and they provided some debugging output with instructions leading up to the crash. + +Looking at the debugging output, there's a section where an instruction ".byte 0x62" appears. This seems odd because it's just a single byte without an opcode that makes sense in this context. The instruction before that is "movq %rdx, 0xc0(%rbx)", which looks normal. + +The crash occurs with signal 4, which corresponds to SIGILL—meaning an illegal instruction was encountered. This suggests that QEMU is executing an invalid x86_62 instruction or misinterpreting valid instructions in a way that causes the CPU to throw this error. + +Now, considering the categories provided: + +1. **Instruction**: This category refers to issues where a specific instruction is causing problems. Given that the crash happens at a particular point and the last instruction before the crash is ".byte 0x62", which doesn't translate into a valid x86_64 instruction, it's possible that this byte is being treated as an instruction. Alternatively, perhaps QEMU is incorrectly handling certain instructions from the benchmark. + +2. **Syscall**: This would involve issues with system calls. However, in the provided information, there's no mention of syscalls or any indication that a syscall is causing the problem. The error seems to be happening during normal execution, not when making a system call. + +3. **Runtime**: This category covers other runtime errors that aren't specifically related to instructions or syscalls. Since the crash is due to an illegal instruction, it's more about how QEMU handles the instruction set rather than a general runtime issue. + +Given that the error is directly tied to executing an invalid instruction and the presence of a ".byte 0x62" which might not be intended as a valid x86_64 opcode, this points towards an instruction-related problem. It's possible that either the benchmark is generating invalid instructions or QEMU isn't correctly emulating certain instructions, leading to this crash. + +Therefore, the most appropriate category for this bug report is "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..814f8991 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into for QEMU. The problem is about an instruction not being emulated correctly—the ADDV opcode. + +Looking at the description, the user says that according to the documentation, ADDV Rm, Rn should add Rm and Rn, store the result in Rn, and set the overflow flag T. But in QEMU, it's storing the result in Rm instead of Rn. That means the instruction is being handled incorrectly. + +The steps to reproduce involve a C program that uses inline assembly with ADDV. The real hardware gives different results than QEMU when this instruction is used. So, the issue isn't with a system call or something happening during runtime; it's specifically about how an instruction is emulated in QEMU. + +So, I think the category should be 'instruction' because it's directly related to how a specific CPU instruction is handled. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where the ADDV instruction is not being emulated correctly by QEMU. The problem lies in the handling of this specific instruction, which falls under the 'instruction' category. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c670ce7f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about Qemu not emulating the SUBV instruction properly. The user provided some code and results from both real hardware and Qemu. Let me try to understand what's going on here. + +First, the problem is with the SUBV opcode in the SH4 architecture. According to the documentation, SUBV should subtract two registers (Rn - Rm) and store the result in Rn, setting the T bit if there's an underflow. Underflow typically happens when subtracting a larger number from a smaller one, causing a borrow beyond the sign bit. + +Looking at the code example: register 'a' is 0x80000001 (which is -2^31 +1 in two's complement), and 'b' is 0x2. The SUBV instruction subtracts Rm (b) from Rn (a). So, 0x80000001 minus 2 equals 0x7FFFFFFF. But the T bit should be set because there's an underflow since we're dealing with negative numbers here. + +On real hardware, after the SUBV, 'c' is set to 1 via MOVT, indicating that the T bit was indeed set. However, in Qemu, 'c' remains 0, meaning the T bit wasn't set even though there should have been an underflow. + +So the issue is specifically with how Qemu handles the SUBV instruction's underflow condition. It correctly computes the subtraction but fails to detect and set the T bit when underflow occurs. This points directly to a problem in the emulation of the instruction itself, not any other part like syscalls or runtime errors elsewhere. + +Therefore, this bug falls under the 'instruction' category because it's about incorrect handling of an assembly instruction. +</think> + +The issue is with the SUBV instruction's underflow detection in Qemu. The correct classification is: + +**instruction** + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2c5e8ea7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. The issue is about an incorrect result when performing the SDIV operation on negative divisors. From what I understand, SDIV is a signed division instruction in SPARC architecture. + +The user provided details that there's a typo in the helper_sdiv() function within target/sparc/helper.c. This typo causes the divisor to be treated as unsigned instead of signed. When they tested with specific values (-1 and -128, etc.), instead of getting 1, they got 0. That definitely points to an issue with how division is handled for negative numbers. + +Looking at the provided patch, it seems that in the code, 'a64 /= b;' was changed to 'a64 /= b32;'. The variable names might be related to signed and unsigned handling. This change likely ensures that both operands are treated correctly as signed 32-bit integers during division. + +Now, classifying this bug: it's an issue with how the SDIV instruction is implemented in QEMU. Since SDIV is a specific instruction causing incorrect results due to a code typo, this falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug involves an error in handling the SDIV instruction, specifically when dealing with negative divisors. This is directly related to how instructions are processed and executed. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..90cdb5d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about an incorrect handling of the froundnx.h instruction in RISC-V. The helper function helper_froundnx_h has a typo where it uses check_nanbox_s instead of check_nanbox_h, which affects how NaN values are handled. When an incorrectly NaN-boxed value is passed to this instruction, QEMU returns 0 instead of a canonical NaN. + +Looking at the steps provided, they involve compiling and running a test program that interacts with QEMU. The problem occurs during runtime when executing the froundnx.h instruction. + +So, the categories I need to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since this is related to how an instruction is handled by the CPU emulator (QEMU), it's more about the execution of a specific instruction rather than a system call or a general runtime error elsewhere. + +Wait, but the helper function is part of the FPU emulation in QEMU. The bug affects the processing of the froundnx.h instruction, which is an assembly-level operation. So this seems to fall under how instructions are handled during execution. + +Alternatively, it could be considered a runtime issue because it's happening while the program is running and not during compilation or linking. But since the problem is specific to the implementation of an instruction within QEMU, I think "instruction" might be more precise here. The error occurs because the helper function mishandles the NaN boxing for this particular instruction. + +Hmm, but the classification options are limited to three: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem is about how an instruction (froundnx.h) is being incorrectly handled by QEMU's FPU helper functions, it's directly tied to the processing of that specific instruction. Therefore, "instruction" seems like the appropriate category. + +Wait another thought: The issue arises during the execution of the program when this instruction is processed. It's not a problem with how instructions are decoded in general but rather an incorrect implementation for one specific instruction. So yes, it's about the handling of that particular instruction by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2294d62c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into. The problem description talks about an issue with the AArch64 UMOPA/UMOPS instructions, specifically their 4-way variant. It mentions that the helper function in QEMU isn't correctly converting element types before multiplication. + +Looking at the provided code, the helper function DEF_IMOP_64 is defined, and it's used for umopa_d. The issue arises because when multiplying elements from the source registers (which are 16-bit), they're being cast to uint16_t but then implicitly converted to int32_t during multiplication. This leads to incorrect sign extension instead of zero extension, which affects the sum calculation. + +The steps to reproduce involve writing a test program that uses these instructions and observing an incorrect output when run on QEMU with the bug. The expected result after fixing should produce different values, indicating that the helper function's type casting is the root cause. + +Since this problem is related to how specific ARM instructions are handled in the emulator (QEMU), it falls under instruction processing. The issue isn't a syscall or a runtime error in general; instead, it's about QEMU misinterpreting or incorrectly executing these particular AArch64 instructions. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3310ecc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Alright, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem description talks about an issue with the fmopa instruction in AArch64. It mentions that during matrix multiplication and accumulation, when using a widening variant, each element should be converted from 16-bit floating point to 64-bit. However, the current implementation incorrectly uses the FZ flag instead of considering FZ16 when dealing with 16-bit elements. + +The steps to reproduce involve writing a C program that sets up specific registers and executes this faulty fmopa instruction within QEMU. The expected output isn't achieved because of how the flags are being handled during conversion. + +Looking at the categories: +- **Instruction**: This seems relevant since it's about how the fmopa instruction is handling data conversions, specifically using the wrong flag. +- **Syscall**: Not applicable here as there's no mention of system calls or related issues. +- **Runtime**: While runtime errors can occur, this issue is more specific to an instruction's execution rather than a general runtime problem. + +Therefore, this bug falls under the "instruction" category because it pertains directly to how the CPU instruction processes data incorrectly based on specific flags. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how the fmopa instruction handles floating-point conversions using the wrong flag (FZ instead of FZ16). This is a problem with the processing of an instruction, not related to system calls or general runtime errors. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..80368c03 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's see what each category means. + +The problem is about the fmopa instruction in AArch64 not generating default NaNs correctly when using the 32-bit variant. The user provided code snippets showing that instead of getting a default NaN (0x7fc00000), they're getting 0xffffffff, which isn't the standard NaN. + +Looking at the code, there's an issue in the helper function for SME instructions. Specifically, the float_status pointer is being passed incorrectly to the multiplication function. The comment says that &fpst should be used instead of vst. So it looks like a bug in how the instruction is handled during execution. + +Since this is about the implementation and handling of an ARM instruction (fmopa) within QEMU's emulator, I think it falls under the "instruction" category. It's not related to syscalls or runtime errors but rather incorrect processing of a specific instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4b60925d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about the AArch64 FJCVTZS instruction in QEMU. Let's see what the problem is and figure out which category it falls into. + +The user described an issue where the helper function for the fjcvtzs instruction isn't handling denormalized numbers correctly when the FPCR.FZ bit is set. This causes the Z flag to be incorrectly set even when the conversion result should clear it. The bug report includes code snippets, steps to reproduce, and additional information. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The problem revolves around how a specific instruction (fjcvtzs) behaves under certain conditions, specifically with denormalized numbers. It seems like the helper function isn't correctly checking if the input is denormalized, leading to an incorrect state of the Z flag. + +Since the issue is related to how an ARM instruction is being handled in QEMU, it's directly tied to the processing of that specific instruction. Therefore, this bug falls under the "instruction" category because it describes a faulty behavior of the fjcvtzs instruction. +</think> + +The issue pertains to incorrect handling of an AArch64 instruction by QEMU, specifically how the FJCVTZS instruction processes denormalized numbers. This affects the state flags, indicating a problem with instruction execution. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5a3301a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me go through each part step by step. + +First, looking at the problem description. The issue is with the vcmla instructions in ARM. These are vector complex multiply and accumulate instructions. The helper functions for these instructions have a bug where they modify an irrelevant vector register. Specifically, the elements per segment calculation is incorrect because 16 divided by the size of float16 or float32 might not be correct. + +In the provided code snippets, the variables eltspersegment are set to 16 divided by the size of the data type. For float16 (half-precision), that would be 8 elements per segment because each element is 2 bytes (16/2=8). Similarly, for float32 (single-precision), it's 4 elements per segment (16/4=4). However, the current code uses 16 divided by the size, which gives the correct number of elements. Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding. The comment says "This should be fixed," implying that perhaps the initial value is wrong. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce: when running the test program on QEMU with the bug, D31 gets modified unexpectedly. It was supposed to remain as 0xff bytes but instead changes to some other values after the vcmla instruction runs. This suggests that the helper functions are incorrectly writing data beyond their intended target. + +The problem arises because the helper function's loop iterates more times than it should, potentially accessing or modifying unintended vector elements. The calculation of eltspersegment is likely incorrect, causing out-of-bounds access. So the bug is in how the vector instructions handle element counts, leading to incorrect register writes. + +So, this seems like an issue with how the instruction is being handled by QEMU's emulator. It's not a problem with a system call (syscall) nor is it about runtime errors unrelated to specific instructions. Instead, it's directly tied to the execution of the vcmla instructions, meaning the bug is in how the instruction is implemented. + +Therefore, this should be classified under the 'instruction' category because it relates to the faulty handling of a specific ARM instruction within QEMU. +</think> + +The issue pertains to incorrect handling of the `vcmla` instruction, specifically how it modifies unintended vector registers due to an out-of-bounds error in element counting. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4d01fcfe --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm looking at this bug report about the RISC-V SLL instruction not working correctly in QEMU. The user provided some code snippets and output to illustrate the issue. Let me try to break this down step by step. + +First, the problem is that when using the SLL (shift left logical) instruction in RISC-V, the result isn't as expected. According to the RISC-V ISA manual, SLL should shift the value in register rs1 by the amount specified in the lower 5 bits of register rs2. But in this case, it seems like an extra shift is happening. + +Looking at the code provided: + +They have two variables a and b with specific values. The assembly instruction `sll %0, %1, %2` is used to compute c as the result of shifting b left by the amount in a's lower 5 bits. + +When they run this through QEMU, the output shows that the result is `55c3585000000000`, but the expected value is `b4d6868655c35850`. The user suggests that the correct shift occurs first, then an additional 32-bit left shift happens, which they don't want. + +So what's happening here? Let me think about how shifts work. For a 64-bit value, shifting by more than 63 would result in zero because all bits are shifted out. But wait, the lower 5 bits can only be from 0 to 31 (since 2^5 = 32). So why is there an extra shift? + +Wait, looking at the code, a is `0x69C99AB9B9401024`. Taking the lower 5 bits of this value would be `a & 0b11111`, which is 4 in decimal because the last five bits are '000100' (binary) or 4. So the shift amount should be 4. + +Let me calculate what b shifted left by 4 should be. The value of b is `0xDB4D6868655C3585`. Shifting this left by 4 bits would result in `DB4D6868655C3585 << 4 = B4D6868655C35850` (since shifting each hex digit left by 4 is equivalent to multiplying by 16). + +But the output from QEMU is `55c3585000000000`, which looks like the correct shifted value but with an extra shift of 32 bits. Because if you take `B4D6868655C35850` and shift it left by 32, you get `55C3585000000000`. So why is this happening? + +Wait a minute, maybe the issue isn't with QEMU but how the variables are being handled. Let me check the C code again. + +The asm statement uses three operands: %0 for c (the result), %1 for b, and %2 for a. But in the RISC-V SLL instruction, the shift amount is only supposed to use the lower 5 bits of rs2. So in this case, a's value is `0x69C99AB9B9401024`, whose lower 5 bits are 4 (since 0x24 in hex is 36 in decimal, but wait, that can't be right because 0x24 is 36, which is more than 5 bits. Wait, no: the lower 5 bits of a would be the last five bits of the binary representation. + +Wait, 0x24 in hex is 00100100 in binary for an 8-bit value. But since we're dealing with a 64-bit register, the lower 5 bits are the least significant five bits of a's entire 64-bit value. So let me compute that. + +The variable a is `0x69C99AB9B9401024` as a 64-bit number. To find the lower 5 bits, I can compute a & 0b11111 (31). Let's calculate: + +a = 0x69C99AB9B9401024 +Let me extract the last 5 bits: +The hexadecimal digit '2' in 0x...024 is the last three bits. The full binary of 0x24 (last two hex digits) is 00100100, but for a 64-bit number, we need to look at all 5 bits. + +Wait, perhaps I made a mistake earlier. Let me compute a mod 32 because the lower 5 bits determine the shift amount. + +a = 0x69C99AB9B9401024 +To get a mod 32: The last five bits correspond to the value of a & 31. + +Let's calculate a in decimal and then mod by 32: + +But that's tedious. Alternatively, for any number, the lower 5 bits are determined by looking at the last two hex digits because each hex digit is four bits. So, 0x...024: The last two hex digits are '24'. Converting '24' to binary: 0010 0100. Now, take the lower five bits from this, which would be bits 0-4 (rightmost). Wait, no: for a 64-bit number, we need to consider all 64 bits and extract the last five. + +Alternatively, perhaps the issue is that when passing 'a' as the shift amount in the asm instruction, QEMU isn't correctly masking it to 5 bits. So if the third operand (rs2) has more than 5 bits set, the shift amount could be larger than intended, causing a bigger shift than expected. + +Wait, looking at the problem again: The correct_shift_res is calculated as b shifted left by (a & 0b11111), which is 4. So correct_shift_res should be 0xB4D6868655C35850. + +But in QEMU's output, it's shifting this result again by another 32 bits to the left, giving 0x55C3585000000000. That suggests that somewhere, the shift amount is being treated as a larger number than intended, possibly because the masking isn't done correctly. + +So perhaps QEMU's SLL instruction is not properly applying the mask to the lower 5 bits of rs2 and instead uses the full value, leading to an incorrect shift amount. In this case, if rs2 is 'a', which has a value that when treated as a 64-bit integer is larger than 31 (since it's 0x...024), then using all bits could lead to a shift of more than 5 bits. + +Wait, no: the RISC-V SLL instruction only uses the lower 5 bits for the shift amount. So QEMU should be applying a mask of 0b11111 (31) to rs2 before shifting. If it's not doing that and instead using the full value of rs2, which is a large number like 0x69C99AB9B9401024, then the shift amount would be way larger than intended. + +In this case, if rs2 is used as is, its lower bits beyond 5 could cause a shift by more than 31. Let me see what 0x69C99AB9B9401024 mod 64 is (since shifting by 64 in 64-bit would result in zero). Wait, but that's not the case here because 0x24 is 36 in decimal. So 36 mod 64 is 36. Shifting a 64-bit number left by 36 bits would leave only the lower 64-36=28 bits set. + +Wait, but that doesn't align with the output seen. Alternatively, perhaps QEMU is treating the shift amount as signed or something else is wrong. + +Alternatively, maybe the issue is in how the operands are passed to the asm statement. Let me look at the C code again: + +asm volatile("sll %0, %1, %2" : "=r"(c) : "r"(b), "r"(a)); + +Here, 'a' is a uint64_t variable, and when used as an immediate in assembly, perhaps QEMU isn't correctly handling the shift amount. Or maybe the way the assembler interprets it is different. + +Wait, no, in RISC-V assembly, the SLL instruction uses rs2's lower 5 bits for the shift. So if 'a' is passed as a register, then the lower 5 bits should be used. But perhaps QEMU isn't correctly implementing this and instead using all bits of rs2 for the shift amount. + +So in the given example, rs2 is 0x69C99AB9B9401024, whose value mod 32 (since lower 5 bits) is 0x24 & 0b11111 = 4. So the correct shift should be by 4. + +But if QEMU isn't masking rs2 and instead uses the full value of a as the shift amount, which is 36 (from 0x24), then shifting b left by 36 would produce a different result. + +Wait, let's calculate that. Shifting 0xDB4D6868655C3585 left by 36 bits: + +In Python: + +b = 0xDB4D6868655C3585 +shift = 36 +result = (b << shift) & 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF + +But wait, that would be a very large shift. Let me compute it. + +Wait, but in reality, when shifting a 64-bit number left by 36 bits, the lower 28 bits would be zero, and the upper part would wrap around if beyond 64 bits. But let's see: + +The correct expected result is 0xB4D6868655C35850 after shifting by 4. + +But in QEMU, it's giving 0x55C3585000000000, which seems like the correct shift (by 4) followed by another shift of 32 bits. So 0xB4D6868655C35850 is 64 bits; shifting it left by another 32 would result in 0x55C3585000000000. + +So why would an extra shift happen? That suggests that the shift amount used was 36 (4 + 32), but that doesn't make sense. Alternatively, perhaps QEMU is using a different part of the register for the shift amount. + +Wait another angle: maybe the issue is with how the third operand is being treated as an immediate value instead of a register. In some assemblers, if you use an immediate without proper handling, it could cause unexpected behavior. + +But in this case, the asm statement uses 'r' constraints, meaning they're passed as registers. So rs2 should be the value from register a. + +Wait, perhaps QEMU is using the higher 5 bits instead of the lower 5? Or maybe there's an endianness issue. + +Alternatively, could it be that in some versions of RISC-V or QEMU, the shift amount isn't properly masked to 5 bits for SLL, leading to using more bits than intended? + +So putting this all together, the bug seems to be related to how the SLL instruction processes the shift amount. Instead of correctly using only the lower 5 bits of rs2, it's either not masking or incorrectly extracting those bits, leading to an incorrect shift. + +Therefore, since the issue is with an instruction (SLL) not behaving as per theISA specification, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +The bug report describes a problem where the SLL instruction in QEMU does not correctly apply the specified shift amount, resulting in an incorrect output. The issue arises because the instruction uses more than just the lower 5 bits of rs2 for the shift amount, leading to unexpected results. + +**Step-by-Step Explanation:** + +1. **Understanding the Instruction**: The SLL (Shift Left Logical) instruction is intended to shift the value in register rs1 by the number of bits specified in the lower 5 bits of register rs2. This means only the least significant 5 bits of rs2 are considered for the shift amount. + +2. **Reproducing the Issue**: + - The provided code initializes two 64-bit variables `a` and `b`. + - It uses inline assembly to perform an SLL operation on `b` using the lower 5 bits of `a` as the shift amount. + - The expected result is a left shift by 4 bits (since `a & 0x1F = 4`), but QEMU's output shows an additional 32-bit shift. + +3. **Analyzing the Output**: + - Correct shift result: `(b << 4)` should be `0xB4D6868655C35850`. + - QEMU's incorrect result: `0x55C3585000000000`, which is the correct result shifted left by another 32 bits. + +4. **Identifying the Cause**: + - The extra shift suggests that instead of using only the lower 5 bits, QEMU uses a larger portion of `a`, possibly interpreting it as a signed or extended value beyond the intended 5 bits. + - This leads to an incorrect shift amount being applied, resulting in unexpected output. + +5. **Conclusion**: The issue lies within the SLL instruction's implementation in QEMU, where it does not correctly mask rs2 to use only the lower 5 bits for the shift amount, causing incorrect results. + +**Answer:** + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..30273c30 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me try to understand what's going on here. + +The problem is about the ldapr_stlr_i instructions in QEMU. The user mentions that these instructions model load acquire and store release immediate operations. They found a bug where the imm field isn't correctly handling signed offsets. Instead of treating it as a signed 9-bit value (s9), it's being treated as an unsigned 9-bit value (9). This causes issues when the imm value is negative, leading to incorrect calculations in QEMU. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce: running on ARM target and generating such instructions leads to wrong immediate calculations if the imm is negative. The user fixed it by changing the imm field from 9 to s9, which made a difference in how it's handled in the generated code—specifically using sextend32 instead of extend32. + +Now, classifying this: The issue is related to how QEMU handles specific instructions and their immediate values. It's not about system calls (syscall) or runtime errors like memory management issues (runtime). Instead, it's a problem with the instruction decoding and handling—how the imm field is interpreted as signed versus unsigned. + +So, I think this falls under the "instruction" category because it directly relates to how instructions are processed by QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue with specific ARM64 instructions (ldapr_stlr_i) where the immediate value isn't correctly handled as a signed 9-bit value. This affects instruction processing, not system calls or runtime errors. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..98b22917 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided a detailed description and some code examples. + +The problem revolves around the `vsetvli` instruction in RISC-V. According to the spec, when certain conditions are met (like changing VLMAX), the `vill` bit should be set. However, QEMU isn't doing this, causing an assertion failure in their test case. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue is about how an instruction (`vsetvli`) is being handled by QEMU, it seems to fall under the "instruction" category. The problem arises because QEMU isn't correctly implementing the behavior specified for this vector instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fb2e1f79 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's go through the problem step by step. + +The user provided a detailed bug report about an issue with the translation of the "vpgatherqq" instruction in QEMU. They observed that when using xmm4 as part of the gather instruction, the offset calculation was incorrect. The offsets for other registers like xmm2 and xmm5 were expected to be in an arithmetic sequence butxmm4's offset wasn't matching. + +They provided assembly code where different xmm registers are used in vpgatherqq instructions. When compiling and running this with QEMU, the generated micro-ops showed that the offset for xmm4 was 0x310 instead of the expected 0x450. They tracked down the issue to a specific part of the code in QEMU's translator. + +The problematic section is in target/i386/tcg/translate.c, specifically the gen_lea_modrm_0 function around line 2215. The code there checks if rm (register) is 4 and then processes it further. It seems that when index is 4, it's set to -1, which might be causing incorrect offset calculations for registers beyond a certain point. + +From the output, using xmm4 resulted in an unexpected offset of 0x310, while others like xmm2 and xmm5 had their expected offsets based on an arithmetic sequence. This suggests that QEMU is misinterpreting how the registers are being used in the gather instruction when register 4 (xmm4) is involved. + +The fact that the helper function for vpgatherqq also uses a wrong value further supports that this is a translation issue specific to certain instructions, not a runtime error or a system call problem. The error occurs during the generation of micro-ops, which is part of instruction execution. + +So, categorizing the bug: it's an issue with how QEMU translates and handles a specific instruction ("vpgatherqq") when involving certain registers like xmm4. Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..92edea94 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user provided some code and described what happens when they run it in QEMU. Let me break down the problem step by step. + +First, looking at the code snippet: + +The code moves the stack pointer (SP) into A1, then copies 0x68 bytes from A0 to A1. After that, there's a loop copying each byte and decrementing D0 until it reaches zero. Finally, there's a jsr (jump subroutine) instruction using the SP as the destination. + +The user mentions that when the jsr is executed with SP at 0x3bfc, QEMU behaves incorrectly. Instead of jumping to 0x3bfc and putting the return address correctly on the stack, it seems like the return address is being placed at 0xb3f8, which doesn't make sense because 0xb3f8 is a different memory location than where the SP points. + +The GDB screenshot shows that the PC (program counter) jumps to 0x3bf8 and starts executing garbage, indicating that the return address isn't correctly handled. This suggests an issue with how QEMU handles the jsr instruction when the target is on the stack. + +Now, considering the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +This problem seems related to how the CPU instruction (jsr) is being executed by QEMU. The bug occurs during the processing of this specific instruction, leading to incorrect behavior in the program flow. Therefore, it's likely an issue with the instruction handling rather than a system call or a runtime error elsewhere. + +So, the category should be 'instruction' because it involves a faulty execution of the jsr instruction. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where QEMU incorrectly handles the `jsr (SP)` instruction, leading to unexpected behavior. This is related to how the instruction is processed by the emulator. + +**Answer:** +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e8175208 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this QEMU bug. The user provided a detailed bug report where running a simple x86_64 executable under QEMU crashes with an error message about a code path not being reached in the tcg-target.c.inc file. + +Looking at the steps, it seems that compiling a basic C program into a static executable and then running it using QEMU leads to this crash. The error occurs in the TCG (Translation Component Generator) part of QEMU, specifically in the PPC target code when testing something. + +The bisect points to a commit by Paolo Bonzini from October 2023. That commit was about optimizing certain test operations for i386 targets, using TSTEQ and TSTNE instructions instead of other comparisons. It looks like this change might have introduced an issue in how the code is generated or translated. + +The error message says "code should not be reached," which suggests that there's a condition in the code that's being hit when it shouldn't be. That means during translation, some unexpected path is taken, causing QEMU to crash instead of handling the instruction properly. + +So, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. This doesn't seem related to a specific system call or an error occurring at runtime beyond the execution of user code. It's more about how instructions are being translated and handled in the TCG layer. Since it's crashing during the translation or execution of instructions, I think this falls under 'instruction' because it's related to processing machine-level operations. + +The bug is likely due to a miscalculation or incorrect handling of an instruction during code generation. The commit introduced changes to how certain test operations are handled, and that might have exposed a bug in the PPC target's TCG backend when translating x86_64 executables. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9fa2963f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU emitting invalid TCG when lifting MMX instructions with redundant REX prefixes. So the issue seems to be related to how QEMU handles certain x86-64 assembly instructions. + +The user provided two examples: `490f7ec0` which is `movq r8, mm0`, and after changing the REX prefix to `4f`, it becomes another instruction. The lifted TCG changes in a way that affects the offset used for MMX registers. This leads to incorrect behavior where R8 doesn't get the expected value from MM0. + +In the test case, when using the original instruction without the redundant REX prefix, QEMU correctly handles it. But with the modified REX prefix, it seems to use a wrong offset, causing data to be read from an incorrect location in memory. + +The user also mentioned that this bug resembles issue #2474, which I assume is another bug related to MMX instructions or REX prefixes in QEMU. The steps to reproduce involve compiling a test program and running it under QEMU, where the output doesn't match expectations because of this TCG generation error. + +The problem occurs during runtime when executing these specific MMX instructions with certain REX prefixes. It's not about handling system calls or faulty instructions per se, but more about how the code is translated into intermediate code by QEMU's TCG (Translation-Caching JIT compiler). The incorrect offset leads to wrong data being loaded into registers, which affects the program's execution. + +So, categorizing this bug: it's related to instruction handling because it's about how specific instructions are lifted and translated. However, since it's more about runtime behavior due to incorrect TCG generation rather than an outright faulty instruction recognition, I might lean towards 'runtime'. But considering that the core issue is with how the instruction is being processed (specifically the REX prefix affecting MMX register access), maybe 'instruction' fits better. + +But wait, the issue arises during execution because of a translation error, so perhaps it's a runtime problem. However, the root cause is in the handling of the instruction by the TCG generator. Hmm. + +Looking back at the possible categories: 'instruction', 'syscall', 'runtime'. The bug report mentions that the lifted TCG is invalid for these MMX instructions with redundant REX prefixes. So it's about how QEMU translates specific x86-64 instructions into TCG code, leading to incorrect behavior during runtime. + +Therefore, I think this falls under the 'instruction' category because it's about handling of a particular instruction type (MMX with certain REX prefixes) leading to faulty translation and subsequent runtime errors. +</think> + +The bug is classified as an issue with instruction handling in QEMU due to improper translation of MMX instructions with specific REX prefixes. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4a8feb6f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU not implementing the FPIAR register in the m68k FPU. The user provided some details, and I need to figure out which category it falls under: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let me understand what's happening here. The problem is that QEMU doesn't implement the FPIAR (Floating Point Interface Address Register) register. This causes issues when test code tries to write to it and then read back the value, resulting in a failure because the written value isn't retrieved correctly. + +Now, looking at the categories: + +1. **Instruction**: This category involves bugs where specific instructions are faulty or not handled correctly by QEMU. The example given is `fmove`, which is an instruction that moves data between registers. Since the test code uses `fmove` and expects it to work with FPIAR, but it doesn't because FPIAR isn't implemented, this might relate to how instructions are handled. + +2. **Syscall**: This would be about errors related to system calls. The problem here isn't about syscalls; it's about the FPU registers, so I don't think this is relevant. + +3. **Runtime**: This category covers other runtime errors not falling under instruction or syscall. Since QEMU isn't handling a specific register during runtime, causing tests to fail when they interact with that register, this could fit here. + +So, the issue arises because certain instructions rely on FPIAR being implemented. However, the core problem is the absence of support for a particular register in the FPU, which affects how these instructions function. Therefore, it's more about the handling of a specific instruction rather than a general runtime error or a syscall issue. + +Wait, but maybe I'm conflating things. The bug isn't that `fmove` itself is faulty; it's that when `fmove` writes to FPIAR, QEMU doesn't implement FPIAR, so reading back the value fails. So it's an instruction handling problem because the instructions are relying on a register that's not implemented. + +Alternatively, since FPIAR isn't implemented, any instruction that uses it would cause issues. Therefore, this is about incorrect implementation of how certain instructions interact with FPIAR. + +So perhaps the category is **instruction**, as it relates to the handling of specific instructions like `fmove` when they involve FPIAR. +</think> + +The issue pertains to the handling of instructions that rely on the FPIAR register, which isn't implemented. Therefore, it falls under: + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d2b8dc90 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let's read through it carefully. + +The problem is about an incorrect order when handling `fmovem` instructions involving multiple FPU control registers on the m68k architecture. The manual specifies that these registers should be moved in a specific sequence: first the floating-point control register, then the status register, and lastly the instruction address register. However, QEMU is currently processing them in reverse order. + +The user provided a code snippet showing changes to `translate.c`. In this diff, they're modifying loops that handle reading or writing these registers. The original code was iterating from higher indices down to lower (like i=2 to 0), which might have been causing the reversed order. The fix adjusts the loop direction and mask handling to ensure the correct sequence. + +So, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. This issue is about how QEMU handles a specific instruction (`fmovem`) with certain registers. It's not related to system calls or general runtime errors; it's an error in executing an instruction as per the architecture manual. Therefore, this falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with handling a specific instruction (`fmovem`) incorrectly. This is classified as an instruction-related problem. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..29d36ab5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided a description about an issue where certain instructions (fsave and frestore) aren't being handled correctly on specific CPUs. + +First, let me understand the problem. The user says that valid code for 68020/68030 uses fsave/frestore with external FPU units like 68881 or 68882. But QEMU only allows these instructions on 68040 and others get an exception. So the issue is that certain CPUs aren't handling these FPU instructions properly. + +Looking at the provided code, the change seems to adjust how features are checked in the translation process. The original code checks for M68K_FEATURE_M68040, but the user suggests changing it to check for M68K_FEATURE_FPU instead. This makes sense because whether fsave/frestore is allowed should depend on having an FPU, not just being a 68040. + +Now, classifying this bug: It's about how instructions are handled. The issue arises when specific instructions (fsave and frestore) cause exceptions incorrectly. So it's related to the processing of these instructions in QEMU. + +Considering the categories provided: +- Instruction: Faulty handling of an instruction. +- Syscall: Error with system calls. +- Runtime: Other runtime errors. + +This bug is about how certain instructions are being treated, specifically causing incorrect exceptions. Therefore, it falls under 'instruction' because it's directly related to the handling of specific CPU instructions. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f5004647 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU and the m68k MMU instructions. Let's read through it carefully. + +The problem is that the 68030 has specific MMU instructions like `pmove` which aren't implemented in QEMU. The issue is that these instructions have the same encoding as F-line instructions, causing an exception instead of performing the intended load or store operation on the MMU. + +So, what category does this fall into? The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The bug is about a specific instruction (`pmove`) not being handled correctly. It mentions that QEMU doesn't implement it and incorrectly raises an F-line exception instead. This seems to be directly related to how instructions are processed in the emulator. + +Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's about handling a particular CPU instruction incorrectly. +</think> + +The bug report discusses a specific MMU instruction (`pmove`) not being implemented correctly in QEMU, leading to an exception instead of the intended operation. This is related to how instructions are handled by the emulator. + +**instruction** + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f6ebe7d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem is about incorrect behavior with SDOT and UDOT instructions on ARM SVE when the vector length is 64 or higher. + +Looking at the description, the user mentions that when they run their code using QEMU with different sve-default-vector-length settings, results are correct for lengths less than 64 but wrong for 64 and above. They provided steps to reproduce, including compiling a C program and running it in QEMU. The issue seems to stem from how these specific instructions (SDOT/UDOT) are handled by QEMU when the vector length is larger. + +The user also notes that using other tools like the Instruction Emulator and gem5 gives correct results, suggesting that QEMU's implementation of these instructions is faulty. This points towards an issue in how the SDOT and UDOT instructions are being executed or interpreted within QEMU. + +Since the problem revolves around specific assembly instructions (sdot and udot) producing incorrect output when using certain vector lengths, it likely falls under a fault in the instruction handling rather than a runtime error or a syscall issue. The classification should be based on whether the bug is about how instructions are processed. + +Therefore, the category for this bug report is "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with specific ARM SVE instructions (SDOT and UDOT) producing incorrect results in QEMU when the vector length is 64 or higher. This points to a problem with how these instructions are being handled by the emulator. + +**Answer: instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..dc34c2e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report related to QEMU. The user provided some details about the crash when running NEON code under `qemu-arm-static`. Let me go through the information step by step. + +First, they mentioned that `qemu-arm-static` crashes 100% of the time when executing generated NEON code. This specifically happens with GStreamer's Orc library using NEON codegen in user emulation mode. When run in system emulation mode, it works fine. So there's a difference between how user and system modes handle this. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce: they cloned the Orc repository, built it statically, and ran `qemu-arm-static` on the compiled tool. The crash occurs inside JIT code, which suggests that the issue is related to just-in-time compilation or execution of generated machine code. + +The backtrace shows a segmentation fault at address 0x409e503c, but there's no function name attached. Disassembling around that address reveals NEON instructions: `vld1.8`, `vst1.8`, and some additions. The crash is happening on the next instruction after these, which is an addition (`add r3, r3, #16`). + +Since it's a segmentation fault without any indication of invalid memory access (the disassembled code doesn't show anything like an illegal address), I suspect it might be related to how QEMU handles NEON instructions or JIT compilation. Maybe there's an issue with how the generated code is being handled by QEMU in user mode, such as incorrect instruction decoding or handling. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, and runtime. The crash isn't due to a syscall error because it's happening within the generated JIT code. It also doesn't seem like a memory access violation since GDB didn't report that. So it's more likely related to how instructions are being handled. + +The fact that the same executable works in system mode suggests that user mode has a different handling of NEON or JIT-generated code. Perhaps there's an issue with instruction decoding or invalidation in user emulation mode, leading QEMU to crash when encountering certain NEON sequences. + +So, considering all this, the category is likely "instruction" because it's about how specific instructions (NEON) are being handled by QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where `qemu-arm-static` crashes while executing generated NEON code. The problem arises during JIT execution and involves specific NEON instructions. This indicates a potential flaw in how these instructions are processed or decoded within the user emulation mode of QEMU. + +**Category: instruction** + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1cba7aeb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report about QEMU into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The report mentions that the 'mtfsf' instruction can clear FI incorrectly. Let's break this down. + +First, what is 'mtfsf'? From my understanding, in PowerPC architecture, 'mtfsf' stands for "move to fixed single floating-point" and is used to modify the FPSCR (Floating Point Status Control Register). This register controls various aspects of floating-point operations, including exception flags. + +The bug states that using this instruction incorrectly clears the FI bit, which I believe stands for Floating-Point Invalid bit. If FI is cleared when it shouldn't be, it could lead to incorrect handling of floating-point exceptions, causing issues in applications relying on these status bits. + +Now, looking at the categories: + +1. **Instruction**: This category deals with issues related to specific CPU instructions and their behavior. Since 'mtfsf' is a specific instruction that's causing a problem, this seems relevant. + +2. **Syscall**: This relates to errors in system calls made by the OS or applications. The issue here isn't about syscalls but rather an instruction within QEMU's emulation of the CPU. + +3. **Runtime**: Covers other runtime errors not related to instructions or syscalls. Since the problem is with how a specific instruction behaves, it doesn't fit into this category. + +Therefore, the bug report falls under the 'instruction' category because it's about the incorrect behavior of a specific CPU instruction in QEMU. +</think> + +The issue is related to an instruction causing incorrect behavior in the emulator. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..fb454606 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report about qemu-hexagon hitting an unreachable assertion in decode_insns(). Let me go through it step by step. + +The user provided a bug description where they're compiling a simple assembly file `start.s` using clang with the hexagon target. The resulting binary is then run with qemu-hexagon, which throws an error saying that code shouldn't be reached at line 492 in decode.c. + +Hmm, the instruction in start.s is just `.word 0`, which might not be a valid Hexagon instruction. When clang compiles this, it's possible that it's creating a binary with an invalid or unrecognized opcode for the Hexagon architecture. + +When qemu runs this, it tries to decode the instructions and hits an assertion because the code path isn't supposed to be reachable. This suggests that the decoder encountered an invalid instruction it didn't expect, causing it to enter an unexpected state. + +So, looking at the possible categories: instruction seems relevant here because the issue arises from trying to execute an invalid or unknown instruction. The error happens during instruction decoding, which is part of processing instructions in the emulator. + +syscall and runtime don't seem to fit as well. There's no mention of system calls failing or other runtime errors beyond the decoder hitting an assertion. + +Therefore, this bug falls under the 'instruction' category because it's related to handling an invalid instruction during execution. +</think> + +The issue arises from an invalid instruction causing the decoder to hit an unreachable code path in QEMU's Hexagon emulator. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..65f3efa3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. So, the user provided a detailed crash log from QEMU when running an emulated NetBSD/sparc64 system. The error message points to an assertion failure in the SPARC64 code generation part of QEMU's source code. + +Looking at the description, it seems that while executing certain instructions, specifically involving sethi and branch operations, QEMU hits an internal assertion. The GDB backtrace shows that the crash occurs during instruction translation when trying to handle a specific instruction sequence. + +Now, I need to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category would be for issues where a particular instruction is causing problems. Syscall relates to system calls not handling correctly. Runtime errors are broader and include other issues that happen during execution but aren't tied to specific instructions or syscalls. + +In this case, the crash happens during instruction translation, specifically in the sparc_tr_insn_start function. The error message indicates an unexpected code path was reached, which suggests a problem with how certain instructions are being handled by the translator. Since it's related to translating and executing specific SPARC64 instructions, this points towards an issue with handling those particular instructions. + +So, I think the category here should be 'instruction' because it's directly tied to processing certain assembly instructions leading to an assertion failure in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a0262487 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The problem involves an issue with the `xvldi` instruction on LoongArch64. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, looking at the user's description: they provided a sample C++ program that uses intrinsic functions to load a specific value into a vector and then dumps the contents of that vector. On real hardware, the output is as expected, but when run under QEMU, the output is incorrect. + +The key point here is that the `xvldi` instruction isn't being implemented correctly in QEMU. The user also provided some code from the QEMU source, specifically the function `vldi_get_value`. In this function, there's a case where data is computed as `(t << 24) | (t << 8)`, but they suggest it should be `(t << (8+32)) | t << 8` instead. + +So, what does that mean? The `xvldi` instruction is supposed to load a vector with an immediate value replicated across all lanes. In this case, the immediate is -3832, which when interpreted as bytes should be 0x4 shifted left by 8 bits, giving each element as 0x800 (assuming little-endian or similar handling). + +In QEMU's current implementation, it seems that the way they're constructing this value is incorrect. The line `data = (t << 24) | (t << 8);` suggests that for some reason, they're combining two shifted versions of the same byte. But according to the user, this isn't correct—it should be shifting by more bits to properly replicate across all elements. + +This indicates a problem with how the instruction is being translated or handled in QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) backend. Specifically, the function responsible for generating the value for `xvldi` has an incorrect calculation. + +Now, considering the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue here isn't related to a system call error or a general runtime problem. It's directly about how QEMU handles a specific instruction (`xvldi`) on LoongArch64. Therefore, this falls under the 'instruction' category because it's an incorrect implementation of a CPU instruction. + +I don't think it's a syscall issue because the program doesn't involve any system calls beyond standard I/O for printing. It's not a runtime error in the sense of memory management or resource issues either; it's specifically about how an instruction is processed, leading to wrong results when executing code that uses `xvldi`. + +So, putting it all together, this bug is an issue with QEMU's handling of a specific instruction, making 'instruction' the appropriate category. +</think> + +The given bug report is classified under the **instruction** category. + +(instruction) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2d4dad2f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about AVX512 support in QEMU user space emulation. The categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. Let me think through each step carefully. + +First, what's AVX512? It's an extension of the x86 instruction set that allows for more vector operations, which can speed up certain computations. So if there's a bug related to AVX512 in QEMU, it probably has something to do with how these instructions are handled. + +Now, looking at the categories: + +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues with specific CPU instructions not working correctly. Since AVX512 adds new instructions, a problem here might fall under this category. + +- **Syscall**: This relates to system calls between user space and kernel space. If the bug was about syscalls failing because of AVX512, it would fit here. But I don't think that's the case since AVX512 is more about instruction handling in the CPU emulation. + +- **Runtime**: These are errors that occur during execution but aren't necessarily tied to a specific instruction or syscall. If the bug was causing crashes or unexpected behavior without pointing to a specific instruction, it might be runtime. + +Given that the report mentions "support for AVX512", I'm guessing the issue is about implementing or correctly handling these new instructions within QEMU's user space emulation. That sounds like an instruction-level problem because it's about how QEMU emulates CPU instructions, specifically AVX512 ones. + +So, putting it all together, the bug report is likely about faulty instruction handling related to AVX512 support in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..73e83824 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The problem is about QEMU crashing when it decodes certain instructions, specifically vldi and xvldi. + +Looking at the description, the issue arises because these instructions allow illegal immediates during decoding. On actual hardware (Loongson 3A5000), such instructions cause a SIGILL signal, meaning they're invalid. However, QEMU isn't handling this correctly—it's crashing instead of behaving as expected. + +The test program uses an assembly instruction that directly writes a specific byte sequence into the code. This likely forms an invalid vldi or xvldi instruction with an illegal immediate value. When run under QEMU, it triggers an assertion error and crashes because the software decoding is too lenient and doesn't handle invalid cases properly. + +Since the problem revolves around how instructions are decoded by QEMU's emulator, it falls under the handling of specific instructions. The crash isn't due to a system call or a runtime issue unrelated to instruction processing but rather how these particular instructions are interpreted. + +So, categorizing this bug would be under "instruction" because it directly relates to the decoding and execution of invalid machine instructions. +</think> + +The issue is related to the handling of specific instructions (`vldi` and `xvldi`) in QEMU. The problem occurs during instruction decoding when illegal immediates are encountered, leading to crashes instead of proper error handling. + +**instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5a7a247a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU emulation. The user mentioned that the fmadds instruction on powerpc64le is buggy. + +First, let me understand what each category means. "Instruction" refers to issues with specific CPU instructions not being handled correctly. "Syscall" would involve problems with system calls in the OS. "Runtime" covers other runtime errors that don't fall into the first two categories. + +In this case, the problem is specifically about an instruction (fmadds) on a PowerPC architecture. QEMU emulates hardware, so if it's not handling a particular instruction correctly, that falls under instruction emulation issues. It doesn't seem to be related to system calls or other runtime problems but rather how the emulator processes certain CPU instructions. + +So, I think this bug should be classified under "instruction" because it directly relates to how QEMU handles a specific CPU instruction. +</think> + +The issue is specifically about an instruction not being handled correctly by the emulator. Therefore, the correct category is: + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..04e2f39a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I have this bug report about QEMU related to incorrect signed comparisons in ldsmax instructions. I need to classify it into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me break this down step by step. + +First, understanding what each category means: +- **Instruction**: This would involve issues with specific CPU instructions not working correctly. For example, if a certain opcode isn't handled properly by the emulator. +- **Syscall**: This relates to system calls made by the program being emulated. Issues here might be about incorrect handling of syscalls or their parameters. +- **Runtime**: These are other runtime errors that don't fall into the above two categories, like memory management issues or timing problems. + +Now looking at the bug report: "qemu-aarch64: incorrect signed comparison in ldsmax instructions." The term "ldsmax" stands out. I recall that in ARM architecture, there are various load and store multiple instructions, but "ldsmax" doesn't ring a bell immediately. Maybe it's a typo or perhaps refers to a specific instruction set. + +Wait, maybe it's related to the LDAR and STLR instructions used in atomic operations on ARM64. Or perhaps "ldsmax" is referring to an instruction that deals with signed maximum values, like ldsmax which could be a load-store exclusive maximum for signed integers. These kinds of instructions are crucial for implementing lock-free data structures. + +The problem mentioned is an incorrect signed comparison. That suggests that when QEMU emulates this instruction, it's not handling the signedness correctly, leading to wrong results or behavior in the guest OS or application running on QEMU. + +So, if the issue is with how a specific instruction (ldsmax) is being handled—specifically its signed comparison logic—that points towards an **instruction** category problem. The emulator isn't executing that particular instruction correctly, which affects the overall functionality of the code relying on it. + +I don't think it's a syscall because the problem isn't about system calls; it's about CPU instructions. It also doesn't seem to be a runtime error in the sense of memory or timing issues but rather an incorrect handling of an instruction's semantics. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..45cf9e14 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this QEMU bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The error message is "ERROR:target/arm/translate-a64.c:13229:disas_simd_two_reg_misc_fp16: code should not be reached". + +First, looking at the file path target/arm/translate-a64.c suggests it's related to ARM instruction translation for 64-bit architecture. The function disas_simd_two_reg_misc_fp16 probably deals with SIMD instructions that use two registers and involve floating-point operations, specifically FP16 which is half-precision float. + +The error message says "code should not be reached", which typically means a situation occurred that the developers didn't anticipate. This could happen if an unexpected instruction or condition was encountered during disassembly or translation. + +Since it's in the translate-a64.c file and dealing with instruction decoding, this is likely related to handling specific ARM instructions, especially SIMD ones. It doesn't seem to be a syscall issue because there's no mention of system calls. It also seems more about instruction processing rather than a general runtime error. + +So, I think this bug falls under the 'instruction' category because it involves incorrect handling or unexpected conditions when translating an ARM instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c1d0fc90 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report about QEMU. The message says "target/ppc: atomic path of Load Quadword instruction require address with write permission." Hmm, let me break this down. + +First, "target/ppc" refers to the PowerPC target in QEMU, which is an emulator for different architectures. So the issue is specific to how QEMU handles certain instructions on the PPC architecture. + +The bug mentions the "atomic path of Load Quadword instruction." Atomic operations are those that execute without interruption, ensuring consistency. The Load Quadword (lq) is a PowerPC instruction that loads 8 bytes from memory into a register. So this is about an atomic load operation. + +Now, the problem states that it requires the address to have write permission. That's interesting because typically, a Load instruction should only need read permissions. If QEMU is expecting write permissions for a Load Quadword, that might be incorrect. + +Wait, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. In some cases, atomic operations can involve both reading and writing due to how they handle memory ordering or if it's part of a larger operation. For example, in multi-threaded environments, atomic read-modify-write operations might need write permissions even though the instruction itself is a load. + +So, looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The issue here seems related to how QEMU handles an instruction (Load Quadword) specifically when it's part of an atomic operation. It's not about a system call or a general runtime error but rather about the correct handling of an instruction under certain conditions. + +Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's describing an issue with how a specific instruction is being handled in QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue with the handling of the Load Quadword instruction in an atomic context within QEMU. It pertains to the requirement for write permissions during what should be a read operation, indicating a problem with how this particular instruction is processed. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1182a197 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I have this bug report that says "Unable to execute MIPS MSA code due to illegal instruction." And it's part of qemu. I need to classify it into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Hmm, first, let me understand each category. Instruction issues would be about specific instructions causing problems. Syscall is related to system calls going wrong. Runtime errors are other runtime issues not covered by the first two. + +The bug mentions an "illegal instruction." That usually means that the CPU encountered an instruction it doesn't recognize or isn't implemented in the emulator. MIPS MSA stands for Multi媒體 Supplement Architecture, which adds instructions for media processing. So if QEMU is throwing an illegal instruction error when executing MSA code, it's probably because the emulator doesn't support those specific MSA instructions yet. + +So this seems to be about a faulty or unsupported instruction rather than a system call issue or a general runtime problem. Therefore, the category should be "instruction." +</think> + +The bug report involves an illegal instruction during execution of MIPS MSA code in QEMU, indicating an issue with handling specific instructions. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..21bb34d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm looking at this bug report about QEMU incorrectly raising an exception on an SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction. Hmm, let me break it down. So, the issue is related to how QEMU handles this specific CPU instruction. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The categories are "instruction", "syscall", and "runtime". + +- "Instruction" refers to bugs where a particular CPU instruction isn't handled correctly. +- "Syscall" relates to errors when making system calls. +- "Runtime" is for other runtime issues that don't fall into the above two. + +In this case, the problem is with the SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction. That's a specific CPU-level command. QEMU is supposed to emulate this correctly but it's raising an exception instead. So it's not about system calls or general runtime errors; it's specifically about handling that instruction incorrectly. + +Therefore, the category should be "instruction" because it's directly related to how QEMU processes a particular CPU instruction. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with QEMU mishandling a specific CPU instruction (SSE4.2 CRC32), which falls under the instruction category. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..bd994e38 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let me read through it carefully. + +The user is encountering an assertion failure when running a Go program that uses vector instructions on s390x Linux. The error message points to translate.c in QEMU's source code, specifically the get_field1 function where an assertion failed: `have_field1(s, o)`. They also provided a stack trace showing that it's happening within the Go runtime and some cryptographic functions. + +They mentioned that reverting a specific series of patches from the master branch fixed the issue. The additional information links to a patch by David Hildenbrand related to s390x translation in QEMU. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem is happening during the execution of vector instructions and leads to an assertion failure in the QEMU translator, it seems like the issue is with how certain instructions are being handled. The user also mentioned that this affects real programs when using HTTPS, which relies on cryptographic operations—so likely tied to specific instruction handling. + +Therefore, the category should be "instruction" because it's related to processing vector instructions leading to a failure in QEMU. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue where executing vector instructions leads to an assertion failure in QEMU's translator. This points to a problem with how certain instructions are handled, making it fall under instruction-related issues. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e8bf095e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The issue says that when using CMake with qemu-alpha-user, it crashes due to an Illegal Instruction. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. + +The "instruction" category would involve a problem with the actual machine instructions being executed. Like if there's a bad opcode or something that the CPU can't handle. + +The "syscall" category is about errors related to system calls. Maybe the program tried to make an invalid call to the OS, which caused it to crash. + +Then there's "runtime", which is for other runtime errors not fitting into the first two categories. So things like memory issues, segmentation faults, etc., that happen while the program is running. + +In this case, the error is an Illegal Instruction when CMake runs qemu-alpha-user. QEMU is a emulator, so maybe it's trying to execute some code that the host CPU doesn't support? Or perhaps there's a problem with how CMake is invoking it. + +I'm leaning towards "instruction" because the error message mentions an illegal instruction, which suggests a problem with the instructions being executed. It could be that QEMU is generating or handling instructions in a way that's incompatible with the host architecture. +</think> + +The crash occurs due to an Illegal Instruction, indicating an issue with executed machine code. + +(instruction) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0ff3995e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report about x86_64 cmpxchg behavior in qemu tcg not matching the real CPU. Let me think through what each category means. + +First, "instruction" would involve an issue where a specific instruction isn't handled correctly by QEMU. Since cmpxchg is an instruction, maybe it's here. + +Then there's "syscall", which is about system calls. But this bug doesn't mention syscalls, so probably not that. + +Lastly, "runtime" covers other runtime errors. But since the issue is with an instruction's behavior, it seems more specific than a general runtime error. + +So I think it falls under the "instruction" category because it's about how the cmpxchg instruction isn't behaving as expected in QEMU compared to real CPUs. +</think> + +The bug report pertains to the handling of the `cmpxchg` instruction in x86_64, which is a specific instruction. Therefore, it falls under the "instruction" category. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8fe11515 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this QEMU bug falls into. Let's see what the problem is. + +The user provided a bug report about overflow condition codes being incorrectly determined after subtraction on s390x architecture. They included a test program that uses __builtin_sub_overflow for both 32-bit and 64-bit integers. When run under QEMU 6.1.0, it's incorrectly reporting no overflow when there should be one. + +Looking at the code generated by the compiler, they're using the 'o' condition code (overflow/ones) in their assembly. The problem is that QEMU isn't setting this correctly after subtraction operations. The expected behavior based on z/Architecture Principles of Operation is that an overflow occurs if the result is outside the signed integer range. + +The user provided a patch to fix this, which suggests it's related to how QEMU handles these condition codes during subtraction. They also mentioned that their test program shows incorrect results both with and without optimization, so it's not just an O2 issue. + +Now, considering the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. This bug seems to be about how certain instructions are handled—specifically, the overflow conditions after subtractions. Since QEMU is misinterpreting the condition code, it's likely a problem with how it executes or decodes these specific instructions on the s390x architecture. + +So, I think this falls under the "instruction" category because it's about incorrect handling of an instruction's result in terms of setting condition codes. +</think> + +The bug is related to the incorrect handling of overflow condition codes after subtraction instructions on the s390x architecture. This involves how QEMU processes specific arithmetic operations and sets condition flags, which directly relates to instruction execution. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8248062f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to figure out what category this bug falls into for QEMU. The user reported an issue where the floating point power function is incorrect when running under qemu-hppa. They provided steps to reproduce it by compiling a C program and then running it in QEMU. The problem is that instead of getting 10^6 = 1,000,000, they're getting 403.45, which is way off. + +First, I need to understand what's happening here. The program uses the pow function from math.h, which should compute base raised to the exponent. Since this is a floating-point operation, it's likely related to how QEMU handles certain instructions or operations on the HPPA architecture. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, and runtime. Let me break down each: + +1. **Instruction**: This would be if there's an issue with how a specific CPU instruction is handled by QEMU. For example, if a particular floating-point operation isn't emulated correctly, this could cause incorrect results. + +2. **Syscall**: If the problem was related to system calls not being handled properly, like open, read, write, etc., then it would fall here. But in this case, the issue is with a math function, not a syscall. + +3. **Runtime**: This category is for other runtime errors that aren't instructions or syscalls. Maybe memory management issues, threading problems, etc. However, the problem seems to be specific to a mathematical computation, so it's more likely an instruction-level issue. + +The example given uses pow(), which involves floating-point operations. The HPPA architecture might have specific instructions for handling powers, and if QEMU isn't emulating those correctly, that would cause this bug. So the error is likely in how QEMU handles a particular instruction or set of instructions related to the power function. + +Therefore, the category should be "instruction" because it's about how a specific floating-point operation (the power function) is being handled incorrectly by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ab2da210 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report from QEMU. The user provided some logs and an explanation of what's happening when they run their test case. Let me break it down step by step. + +First, looking at the initial problem: when running with certain debug options, the stack pointer isn't what's expected. It shows 80045fe0 instead of 80045fd8. That suggests there might be an issue with how the stack is being managed or something related to memory addressing. + +Then, when they run with additional options including -singlestep, they notice that certain instructions aren't executed as expected. Specifically, the linkw and movel instructions are skipped, and instead, an extra orib instruction is being executed. This is odd because those instructions should be part of the normal execution flow. + +Looking at the logs, it seems like there's a problem with how the disassembler and translator interpret certain instructions. There's a note about "Disassembler disagrees with translator over instruction decoding," which implies that QEMU's internal components aren't in agreement about what the machine code represents. That's a red flag for an issue in the way instructions are being parsed or translated. + +The fact that extra instructions appear when running in single-step mode suggests that there might be a bug in how the CPU state is handled, especially around branching or instruction fetches. Maybe the translator isn't correctly handling a specific opcode, causing it to insert incorrect operations into the execution stream. + +Also, considering the user mentioned using "-cpu m68020," this points towards an issue with the 68020 processor emulation in QEMU. The problem arises during instruction decoding and execution, which falls under how the CPU handles instructions—so it's likely related to the handling of specific opcodes or instruction sequences. + +Putting it all together: the bug report is about incorrect instruction execution (some not being run as expected, others appearing unexpectedly) due to a disagreement in the disassembler and translator. This points to an issue with how the CPU core handles instructions, specifically an error in the way certain opcodes are translated or executed. Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's about faulty instruction handling rather than syscalls or runtime errors unrelated to instruction execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..aeb14605 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to classify this bug report for QEMU. Let's read through the description carefully. + +The problem is that TCG Optimizer crashes on an AArch64 SVE2 instruction. The error message mentions an assertion failure in do_constant_folding, specifically operation 145 which isn't recognized. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce, there's a provided assembly code snippet. The code includes various operations like mrs (move from system register), orr (bitwise OR), msr (move to system register), and so on. The critical part seems to be near the end with the instruction 'uqxtnt z11.s, z22.d'. + +I know that SVE2 stands for Scalable Vector Extension 2, which introduces new vector instructions in ARM architecture. The uqxtnt instruction is likely one of these new operations. + +In the context of QEMU's TCG (Translation Code Generation), if an unrecognized operation code (op) is encountered during optimization, it would trigger a fatal error because the optimizer doesn't know how to handle that specific opcode. Since the error message points to do_constant_folding and mentions operation 145, this suggests that the optimizer isn't aware of how to process this instruction. + +So the issue arises when QEMU tries to optimize an SVE2 instruction that's not yet handled by the TCG optimizer. This means the bug is related to processing a specific instruction in the guest code that QEMU doesn't correctly handle during translation or optimization phases. + +Therefore, the category for this bug would be 'instruction' because it's about handling a particular CPU instruction. +</think> + +The bug occurs due to an unrecognized SVE2 instruction causing TCG to crash. It's related to processing instructions. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b0480b51 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Alright, so I'm looking at this problem where QEMU is producing a Translation Block error with specific instructions. The user provided an example where four instructions are involved. The first and third instructions are identical (both cmp eax, 0x6), and the second instruction seems to be the prefix of the fourth one (which is jnle 0x524). This pattern repeats with different addresses but follows the same structure. + +First, I need to understand what's going on here. The fact that instructions are repeating suggests there might be an issue in how QEMU is translating or executing these instructions. Maybe it's a bug in the translation process where certain conditions cause the same instruction to be added multiple times incorrectly. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem seems to involve specific assembly instructions being handled improperly by QEMU, I think it might fall under the "instruction" category. The issue doesn't seem to relate directly to system calls or general runtime errors but rather how individual instructions are processed and translated. + +I should consider whether this is an error in how the emulator handles certain opcodes or instruction sequences. The repeated cmp and jnle could be causing a loop or incorrect branching, leading to translation block issues. Therefore, it's likely related to how QEMU translates these specific instructions, making "instruction" the appropriate category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..76895297 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report under one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's break it down. + +The problem is about an SVE2 LDNT1SB instruction causing a data abort due to an incorrect address calculation. The user provided register states and the instruction in question. From what I understand, SVE instructions handle vector operations, and this specific instruction is supposed to load data from memory using both vector and scalar components. + +The report mentions that QEMU's implementation for LDNT1SB was simply redirecting to the LD1SB handler. But LDNT1SB uses a different addressing mode (vector plus scalar) compared to LD1SB, which might be using a scalar plus vector approach. The incorrect handling by the LD1SB handler would mean it calculates the address wrong, leading to an invalid memory access and thus a data abort. + +Since the issue is directly related to how the CPU instruction is being executed—specifically, how the address is calculated during a load operation—it's clear that this is an error in processing the instruction itself. It's not about system calls (syscall) or general runtime errors unrelated to specific instructions. The problem lies within QEMU's handling of the LDNT1SB instruction. + +Therefore, the appropriate category for this bug report should be "instruction". +</think> + +The bug report discusses a problem with how the `ldnt1sb` instruction is handled in QEMU, specifically an incorrect address calculation leading to a data abort. This falls under issues related to instruction execution. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a9ee077a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Alright, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report for QEMU. The user is reporting an issue where the `icebp` instruction (opcode 0xF1) isn't behaving correctly when run under QEMU. On bare metal Linux, it raises a `SIGTRAP`, but in QEMU, it results in a `SIGILL`. + +First, I need to understand what each of these signals means. `SIGTRAP` is typically raised by debug exceptions or breakpoints, which makes sense for the `icebp` instruction since it's used for debugging purposes. On the other hand, `SIGILL` indicates an illegal instruction, meaning that the system doesn't recognize the instruction being executed. + +Looking at the code provided, the user compiles a small program that uses the `icebp` instruction and then either exits or performs a syscall. When run directly on hardware (bare metal), it correctly triggers a `SIGTRAP`, which is expected because `icebp` generates a debug exception (#DB). However, when running under QEMU, it incorrectly raises an illegal instruction signal instead. + +Now, considering the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue here seems to be related to how QEMU handles specific instructions. Since the problem arises from executing the `icebp` opcode and not processing it correctly, it's likely a fault in how QEMU decodes or emulates this particular instruction. + +Therefore, the bug is probably under the 'instruction' category because it pertains to the incorrect handling of an x86 instruction by QEMU. The fact that it raises an illegal instruction instead of a trap indicates a problem with the emulation of that specific opcode. +</think> + +The bug report concerns the incorrect handling of the `icebp` instruction in QEMU, leading to an improper signal being raised. This is categorized under instruction processing. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..aeb9a148 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Alright, I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report about QEMU. The issue mentioned is "Misinterpretation of arm neon invalid insn." So, let's break that down. + +First, Neon refers to ARM's SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) architecture, which is used for parallel processing in applications like media encoding and decoding. So the problem seems to be related to how QEMU handles certain ARM Neon instructions. + +The term "invalid insn" suggests that there's an instruction being processed that isn't valid or isn't handled correctly. If QEMU misinterprets this, it could lead to incorrect behavior when executing code on ARM architectures, especially those utilizing Neon. + +Looking at the categories provided: +- Instruction: This involves issues with how specific instructions are handled. +- Syscall: Problems related to system calls. +- Runtime: Other runtime errors not covered by the above. + +The bug report doesn't mention anything about system calls or general runtime issues. Instead, it's specifically about an invalid Neon instruction being misinterpreted. That points directly to a problem with handling a specific type of instruction. + +So, putting it all together, this seems like an issue under the "instruction" category because it's about how QEMU processes an ARM Neon instruction incorrectly. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c2e43e42 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The report is about an issue found in QEMU's x86 translation code related to the BT/BTS/BTR/BTC instructions. + +Looking at the provided code snippets, it seems that there are problems with how these instructions handle the Zero Flag (ZF). Specifically, the ZF is always being set, which might not be correct according to the Intel instruction set architecture. The user mentions a fixed patch exists but isn't providing it here. + +The bug report discusses issues in the way QEMU's x86 emulator translates and executes these bit manipulation instructions. It points out that the Zero Flag (ZF) is always being set, which isn't accurate for all cases of these operations. For example, BT checks a specific bit; if that bit is 0, ZF should be set to 1, otherwise, it remains 0. If QEMU incorrectly sets ZF regardless of the operation's outcome, this would cause incorrect behavior in emulated programs. + +Since the issue revolves around how certain instructions (BT/BTS/BTR/BTC) are being handled by the emulator, leading to an incorrect state of a CPU flag, this falls under the category related to individual instructions not behaving as expected. The problem isn't with system calls or runtime errors in general but specifically with how these particular x86 instructions are emulated. + +Therefore, the correct classification should be "instruction" because it's about a specific instruction causing incorrect behavior. +</think> + +The bug report discusses an issue with specific x86 instructions (BT/BTS/BTR/BTC) incorrectly setting the ZF flag in QEMU. This is related to how these instructions are handled during translation. + +**Answer:** instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3ac2b526 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. The user is having an issue where their program runs fine under GDB but crashes when run directly in QEMU. Specifically, they're getting a core dump because of a signal 5 (Trace/Breakpoint trap). + +Looking at the disassembly, there's a BKPT instruction at address 0xa608. I remember that BKPT is used for breakpoints and should generate a SIGTRAP when hit. But in QEMU's Linux-user mode for ARM 32-bit, this isn't handled correctly. The user mentioned they found a bug report indicating this was fixed, but it's still happening. + +They provided the GDB session where stepping through the code lands on the BKPT instruction without crashing. However, when running outside of GDB, QEMU doesn't recognize the BKPT and triggers a SIGTRAP, leading to a core dump. + +The backtrace shows that QEMU is processing pending signals, specifically signal 5 (SIGTRAP), which causes it to abort. This suggests that the issue lies in how QEMU handles the BKPT instruction when not under GDB's control. + +So, this seems like an issue with how instructions are handled by QEMU—specifically, the BKPT instruction isn't being translated into a SIGTRAP correctly in non-debugging scenarios. +</think> + +The problem arises because QEMU doesn't properly convert the BKPT instruction into a SIGTRAP signal when not debugging. This is an issue related to handling instructions. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..31d04d0f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I need to classify this bug report from QEMU into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's break it down step by step. + +The problem is about floating-point conversion functions on s390x architecture. The user noticed that some cases are broken while collecting reference files for float_convs and float_convd. They provided a diff showing the discrepancies between test outputs and references. + +Hmm, floating-point operations are handled at a low level in processors, so they often relate to how instructions are executed or interpreted by the CPU. Since s390x is an architecture with specific instruction sets, issues here could be related to incorrect handling of certain instructions during conversions. + +Looking at the categories: +- **Instruction**: Faulty instruction handling. +- **Syscall**: Errors related to system calls. +- **Runtime**: Other runtime errors not covered above. + +The issue seems more about how floating-point operations are being processed rather than a problem with system calls. It's also not just a general runtime error because it's specific to certain instructions or their implementation in the conversion functions. + +So, since it's related to the handling of floating-point conversions which likely involve specific CPU instructions and their correct execution, this falls under the instruction category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7453dc3c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +<think> +Alright, I need to classify this bug report into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description carefully. + +The issue is about the QEMU emulator's handling of the `fldl` instruction specifically for i386. The user mentions that the problem arises from the `float64_to_floatx80` function not working correctly. They provided examples showing incorrect output before and after a specific commit, indicating it's related to how floating-point operations are emulated. + +Looking at the categories: +- "instruction" would apply if there was an issue with the emulator handling a particular CPU instruction incorrectly. +- "syscall" relates to issues with system calls. +- "runtime" covers other runtime errors that aren't instructions or syscalls. + +Since the problem is directly tied to how QEMU emulates the `fldl` instruction and its interaction with the FPU control word, this falls under the emulator's handling of a specific instruction. Therefore, it should be classified as an "instruction" issue. +</think> + +The bug report describes an issue with how QEMU handles the `fldl` instruction, specifically related to floating-point operations and precision control bits in the FPU control word. This is directly tied to the emulation of CPU instructions. + +**instruction** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4d754363 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, so I'm trying to classify this bug report into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user provided a detailed crash report from Fedora 36 involving an illegal instruction error when using flatpak. Let me break down what's happening here. + +Looking at the stack trace, the program crashes in a function called `sha512_block_data_order_avx2` within `/lib64/libgnutls.so.30`. The disassembly shows that the problematic instruction is `vzeroupper` at address `0x7f89783cbe4a`. + +I remember that `vzeroupper` is an AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) instruction used to zero out the upper bits of YMM registers. This instruction is part of the x86-64 instruction set and is typically used when transitioning between scalar and vector operations to avoid undefined behavior. + +The error occurs because the CPU doesn't recognize `vzeroupper` as a valid opcode, which suggests that either the CPU doesn't support AVX instructions or the code isn't checking for AVX support before using these instructions. Since the bug report mentions Fedora 36, it's possible that the system in question has an older CPU without AVX support. + +So, the issue revolves around an instruction (`vzeroupper`) being executed on a system where it's not supported. This falls under the category of an invalid or faulty instruction. It's not related to a syscall error or a runtime issue like memory management; instead, it's about using an unsupported CPU instruction. + +Therefore, I classify this bug as part of the "instruction" category. +</think> + +The bug is caused by an invalid CPU instruction being executed on a system that doesn't support it, specifically `vzeroupper`. This falls under the category of an instruction-related issue. + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 new file mode 100644 index 00000000..62c205d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to classify this bug report under one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem involves QEMU not handling the SCTLR_EL1.BT0 bit correctly in user mode, which causes an incorrect signal when running a specific program. + +Looking at the code provided, it seems the issue arises because PACIASP is acting as a BTI landing pad but under certain conditions, such as when SCTLR_EL1.BT is set. The test program expects a SIGILL if everything is correct, otherwise a SIGSEGV. This implies that the problem is related to how instructions are being handled in QEMU. + +The error occurs during runtime when executing specific instructions, particularly around indirect branches and BTI (Branch Target Identification) handling. Since it's about instruction execution and exception handling rather than system calls or general runtime errors, I think this falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +The issue is related to how certain instructions are handled by QEMU, specifically involving BTI and PACIASP. The bug arises from incorrect handling of these instructions during execution. + +(instruction) \ No newline at end of file |