1 files changed, 19 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..8f329e65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+<think>
+Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is reporting a bug related to the SLL instruction in RISC-V when using QEMU. So, the problem is that when they execute the SLL instruction, the result isn't what they expect. 
+
+Looking at the code example, they have two 64-bit integers, a and b. The SLL instruction is supposed to shift b by the lower 5 bits of a. The lower 5 bits of a (0x69C99AB9B9401024) would be 0x24 & 0b11111, which is 0x14 (since 0x24 is 36 in decimal, and 36 mod 32 is 4, so shift by 4 bits). 
+
+The correct_shift_res should be (0xDB4D6868655C3585 << 4) masked to 64 bits. Let's compute that. Shifting 0xDB4D6868655C3585 left by 4 would multiply it by 16. Let's see: 0xDB4D6868655C3585 * 16 is 0xB4D6868655C35850 (since 0xDB4D...3585 shifted left four bits would add 4 zeros at the end, but since it's a 64-bit value, maybe there's an overflow beyond 64 bits which is masked out? Wait, 0xDB4D6868655C3585 is a 64-bit value. Shifting left by 4 would make it 68 bits, but they are taking the lower 64 bits. So 0xDB4D6868655C3585 << 4 is 0xB4D6868655C35850 (since 0xDB4D...3585 multiplied by 16 is 0xB4D6...35850). But the QEMU output is 55c3585000000000, which seems like that correct value shifted left by another 32 bits. 
+
+The user's Python example shows that the incorrect result is correct_shift_res shifted left by 32. So the QEMU simulation is shifting by 4 + 32 = 36 bits? But the RISC-V spec says that the shift amount is the lower 5 bits of rs2, which can only be 0-31. So shifting by 36 doesn't make sense. 
+
+The problem seems to be in how QEMU is handling the shift amount. Maybe there's a bug in the QEMU emulator's implementation of the SLL instruction where it's not correctly masking the shift amount to 5 bits, or perhaps there's an error in how the registers are being accessed. For example, if the code was accidentally using a 32-bit register instead of a 64-bit one, then shifting by 4 in a 32-bit context and then extending might lead to the observed result. 
+
+Looking at the C code: the variables are uint64_t, and the asm is using "r" constraints, which should select 64-bit registers. But if QEMU's RISC-V emulation has a bug where it's treating the registers as 32-bit (like using the wrong register size), then shifting a 32-bit value and then zero-extending would result in the lower 32 bits being shifted and upper bits zero. For example, if the emulator was using 32-bit registers, then shifting 0xDB4D6868655C3585 (which is 0xDB4D...3585 as a 64-bit value) as a 32-bit value would only take the lower 32 bits (0x655C3585), shift by 4 to get 0x655C3585 * 16 = 0x55C35850, then zero-extend to 64 bits, giving 0x0000000055C35850. But the observed output is 0x55c3585000000000, which is that 32-bit result shifted left by 32 bits. That suggests that maybe the emulator is using a 32-bit register, performing the shift, and then storing it as 64-bit by shifting left by 32. 
+
+Alternatively, maybe the emulator is mishandling the shift amount. For example, if the code was extracting the shift amount incorrectly, but the user's analysis says that the shift amount is correct (they mask with 0b11111). 
+
+Given that the problem is in QEMU's execution of the SLL instruction, and the issue is with how the instruction is emulated (handling register sizes, shift amounts, etc.), this would fall under the "instruction" category because the bug is in the emulation of a specific instruction. The user's example shows that the generated code is correct (the C code uses inline assembly), so the problem isn't with the compiler or the syscall interface, but with QEMU's runtime handling of the SLL instruction.
+</think>
+
+instruction
\ No newline at end of file