diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction')
232 files changed, 2917 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2d71cf815 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1022 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU crashing with a segmentation fault when using the vsra.vx instruction. The backtrace points to code_gen_buffer, which is part of QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) acceleration. The problem occurs during simulation, specifically when executing the vsra.vx instruction. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for issues related to specific CPU instructions. The vsra.vx is a RISC-V vector instruction, so if the bug is due to incorrect handling of this instruction, it would fall under 'instruction'. + +Looking at the backtrace, the crash happens in cpu_tb_exec and cpu_exec, which are part of the execution loop. The error is a segmentation fault, which could be due to invalid memory access. However, the root cause here is likely related to the execution of the vsra.vx instruction, as the problem occurs when encountering that specific instruction. The user's steps to reproduce include using a binary that uses this instruction, leading to the crash. + +Since the issue is directly tied to the execution of the vsra.vx instruction and QEMU's handling of it, this is an instruction-related bug. There's no mention of system calls here, and while the crash happens at runtime, the primary cause is the specific instruction. So the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1027 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1027 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e6a0c6c9f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1027 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, I need to figure out what category this bug report falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let me read through the problem description again. + +The issue is about QEMU binaries on macOS not having an embedded property list (plist). The user explains that macOS apps usually use an Info.plist file inside the app bundle, but for command line tools, you can embed it using the linker with the -sectcreate option. The problem is that without this embedded plist, certain system features won't work correctly, like the bundle identifier. The solution is to create a plist file and tell the linker to embed it. + +So, the bug is that the QEMU binaries are missing this embedded plist. The user is suggesting that the build process for QEMU isn't including this step. The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +An instruction error would be if there's a mistake in how the code is written or compiled. A syscall error is about system calls failing. Runtime errors occur during execution. + +In this case, the problem is during the linking phase. The linker isn't being instructed to include the plist file. The issue is in the build process, specifically the linking command. So, the error is in the way the executable is being built, not in the code's runtime behavior or system calls. Therefore, this seems like an instruction issue because the correct linker flag isn't being used. The category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b19407dc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1028 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's RISC-V RVV implementation. The specific issue is an assertion failure when using the vmv.v.x instruction with e64 and vl set to vl_max on an RV32 guest. The error occurs because the code is trying to use a 32-bit function for a 64-bit operation, leading to an assertion that vece (vector element size) is within MO_32, but it's actually MO_64 here. + +The problem is in the trans_vmv_v_x function in trans_rvv.c.inc. When the SEW (vector element width) is e64 (which is 64 bits), but the target is RV32, the code calls tcg_gen_gvec_dup_i32, which expects a maximum of 32 bits. The solution proposed involves checking if the target is 32-bit and the SEW is 64, then using a 64-bit temporary variable and generating the correct 64-bit instruction. + +Since the issue is directly related to the handling of a specific instruction (vmv.v.x) and the incorrect code generation for that instruction under certain conditions (RV32 with e64), this is an instruction-related bug. The problem isn't with a syscall or general runtime error but specifically with the implementation of the vector instruction in QEMU's translation code. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cd8f09e73 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1051 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report with the title "or1k tcg SIGILL" and wants me to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to break down what "or1k tcg SIGILL" might mean. Or1k refers to the OpenRISC 1000 architecture, which is a RISC processor. TCG stands for Tiny Code Generator, which is part of QEMU's dynamic translation system. SIGILL is a signal in Unix-like systems that stands for "illegal instruction." So, the bug report is about QEMU's TCG encountering an illegal instruction when running on the or1k target. + +The problem here is that the generated code by TCG is causing an illegal instruction error. That suggests that the code being generated is invalid for the host architecture. Since TCG is responsible for translating guest instructions into host machine code, if there's an illegal instruction, it's likely due to a mistake in how the instructions are translated or handled. + +Looking at the categories, the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. An illegal instruction error is directly related to the execution of an invalid instruction, which would fall under the "instruction" category. The "instruction" category is for issues where a faulty instruction is described. Since the SIGILL is caused by an incorrect or unsupported instruction being executed, this fits the "instruction" category. + +Syscall would be if there's an issue with system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are other issues during execution, but here the specific issue is an illegal instruction, which is more directly related to the instruction handling. So the correct category should be "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3ba2120ab --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1054812 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a problem with Qemu's configure script on Darwin (OS X). They mention there are two versions of libtool: Apple's and GNU's. The issue is that the Apple version doesn't build libcacard properly, but the GNU one does. They work around it by setting LIBTOOL=glibtool when configuring, but that variable isn't preserved when the Qemu configure script runs. The user suggests modifying the configure script to check for Darwin and use glibtool instead, or check the features of libtool to find a compatible version. + +So, the problem here is during the configuration phase of building Qemu. The configure script isn't correctly selecting the right libtool on Darwin. The LIBTOOL environment variable isn't being passed or preserved properly. The bug is related to how the configure script is handling the libtool selection, which is part of the build process setup. Since it's an issue with the configure script's logic and environment variables during the configuration step, it's not a runtime error or a syscall issue. The user is pointing out that the configure script isn't handling the LIBTOOL variable correctly, which is an instruction or setup problem in the build process. However, the categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Wait, the user says "faulty instruction" in the instruction category. Maybe "instruction" here refers to a mistake in the way the build is instructed, like the commands or the script's logic. Since the problem is that the configure script isn't following the correct logic (checking for Darwin and using glibtool), it's an issue with the instructions in the configure script. So the category would be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1075 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1075 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..54c9dd98a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1075 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is trying to create a Kubernetes cluster using the ppc64le version of kind on an x86 host. They've followed steps involving qemu-user-static, downloaded the right binaries, set up KUBECONFIG, and then when creating the cluster, it fails. The question is to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the problem is about running a binary for a different architecture (ppc64le) on an x86 host. Qemu-user-static is used here to emulate the ppc64le environment. The user ran the docker command to set up QEMU, which is necessary for cross-architecture container execution. + +Now, when they run the kind command, which is supposed to create a cluster using the specified image, it's possible that during the execution of the kind binary (which is for ppc64le), QEMU is translating the instructions. If there's an error here, it could be due to incorrect emulation. The problem might not be in the syscall itself, but in how the instructions are being emulated. + +The error could be that the ppc64le binary is being executed on x86 via QEMU, and maybe certain instructions aren't being handled correctly. The user might be hitting an instruction that QEMU can't emulate properly, leading to a failure. Since the error happens during the execution of the binary (runtime), but the root cause is the emulation of specific instructions, it's tricky. However, the categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +"Instruction" category is for a faulty instruction in the bug report. If the problem is that the binary is trying to execute an instruction that QEMU doesn't support, then it's an instruction error. But if the problem is more about the runtime environment (like QEMU setup not being correct), it might be runtime. + +But looking at the steps, they did run the docker command to set up QEMU properly. The issue might be that when kind is trying to create the cluster, it's executing some ppc64le-specific instructions that QEMU can't handle, leading to an error. Therefore, the bug is classified as 'instruction' because the problem arises from executing instructions that the emulator can't process. Alternatively, if it's a general runtime error (like missing dependencies, configuration issues), it would be runtime. + +But given that the user is using a cross-architecture binary, and the error is during execution of that binary on an emulated environment, the most likely category is 'instruction' because it's about the specific instructions not being emulated correctly. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1079080 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1079080 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..777783437 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1079080 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user wants me to classify this bug report into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Looking at the bug report, the main issue is about the ARM instruction "srs" not behaving correctly. The problem is that when executing this instruction, the CPSR is stored instead of the SPSR. The user references the ARM Architecture Reference Manual and mentions that this is specific to Thumb mode, with a note that a similar issue in ARM mode was fixed in 2009. + +The context given is using QEMU to simulate a Cortex-A9 processor. The user provided a patch and a link to the patchwork submission. The discussion revolves around the incorrect handling of the SRS instruction in QEMU's emulation. + +Since the bug is directly related to the execution of a specific machine instruction (SRS) and how QEMU is handling that instruction, it falls under the "instruction" category. There's no mention of system calls or runtime errors here. The issue is in the instruction emulation within QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2b74fdb0f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1086 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user is saying that when they run the numpy and scipy test suites in QEMU on ppc64le, the tests fail, but they work on aarch64. The failures involve issues with floating-point operations—like arrays not matching up, wrong values, or permutations. The user suspects it's a QEMU issue rather than a problem with the packages themselves. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +First, instruction would be if there's a specific CPU instruction that's not handled correctly. Since the problem is with floating-point calculations, maybe QEMU's emulation of floating-point instructions on ppc64le is flawed. The test cases involve things like ULP (Units in Last Place) differences, which are very specific to how floating-point operations are executed. So if QEMU isn't correctly emulating the exact FPU behavior for these instructions on ppc64le, that could cause these errors. + +Syscall would be if the issue is with system calls, but the problem here seems to be in the computation itself, not in system calls. The test failures are during numerical computations, not during interactions with the OS. + +Runtime errors could be a catch-all, but the user's description points to QEMU's emulation of the hardware, specifically the instruction execution for floating-point. Since the same code works on aarch64 and not on ppc64le via QEMU, it's likely that the QEMU's handling of certain instructions for ppc64le is causing the discrepancy. + +So the category is probably "instruction" because it's about incorrect execution of specific instructions (floating-point operations) in QEMU's emulation for ppc64le. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..96aee76ef --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1092 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the PowerPC `sraw` instruction not setting the `ca` and `ca32` flags as specified in the PowerISA 3.1b document. They mention that `srawi` does set those flags correctly, but `sraw` doesn't. + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem is about the translation of specific instructions (`sraw` and `sraw.`) not setting certain flags. Since this is related to how the instructions are implemented in QEMU's code (specifically in translate.c), it's an issue with the instruction emulation. The user provided links to the code for `sraw` and `srawi` in QEMU's source, showing where the translation functions are. + +Syscalls are about system calls made by the guest OS, which doesn't seem relevant here. Runtime errors are more general, but this is specifically about instruction execution. The core issue is that the instruction's translation (emulation) is incorrect regarding flag settings. + +Therefore, this should be classified under the "instruction" category because it's a faulty implementation of a specific CPU instruction in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095531 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095531 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b0c3a6e57 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095531 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user mentioned that there are code generation errors in SPARC32plus on 64-bit hosts, specifically in the load and store functions. The problem seems to be related to the gen_address_mask() function in the translate.c file. + +Looking at the provided assembly snippets, there's a line like "mov %ebx,%ebx" which the user points out as a bug. They explain that in 64-bit mode, 32-bit operations zero the upper bits. The issue might be that the generated code isn't handling the 32-bit operations correctly on a 64-bit host, leading to incorrect masking or extending of addresses. + +The user tried disabling gen_address_mask(), which is supposed to handle address masking, but that made things worse. This suggests that the problem is in how addresses are being generated or masked during translation, leading to incorrect machine code for loads and stores. + +Since the issue is about the generated code for instructions (like load and store) being incorrect, this seems to fall under the "instruction" category. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment, but rather with the translation/emit of specific instructions, leading to faulty machine code execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c871bae90 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1095857 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to incorrect handling of [r32] addresses in long mode. The issue is that when executing an instruction like mov eax, [r15d], it's being treated as mov eax, [r15]. According to the x86 manuals, the address-size override should ignore the high 32 bits of the register. The user is using this to save register space, but when the high bits aren't zero, it leads to a GPF because the address isn't canonical. The problem doesn't always happen, depending on the high bits. + +So, the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The core issue here is how the instruction is being handled. The instruction's addressing mode is not being correctly interpreted by QEMU. The problem arises from the way the address-size override is applied, leading to incorrect memory addressing. Since it's about the execution of the instruction and the addressing mode, this would fall under the "instruction" category. It's not a syscall or a runtime error in the sense of program execution after the instruction is processed. The error is in the instruction decoding or execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1128 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1128 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d813c545b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1128 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug report falls into. The user is talking about a specific function in QEMU's PPC code, spr_write_xer, which isn't setting certain flag bits in the cpu_xer variable. The problem is that the function is excluding those flags by using a bitwise NOT (~) when copying bits from the source GPR. + +The issue isn't causing problems during execution because spr_read_xer is getting the flags from other variables like cpu_ca, cpu_ov, etc. But it's a problem for debugging tools that trace execution, like the one mentioned. Those tools probably expect the cpu_xer to have all the bits, including the flags. + +The user suggests fixing it by removing the ~ in the code. The bug is related to the handling of the XER register in the PowerPC emulator. Since XER is a processor register and the issue is about how instructions that write to XER are handled, this seems to be an instruction-related problem. The function spr_write_xer is part of the translation code for PowerPC instructions, so when an instruction like mtxer is executed, the write to XER isn't correctly setting those flags in the cpu_xer structure. + +The problem isn't a syscall, because it's about register handling, not system calls. It's also not a general runtime error because it's specifically about instruction execution and register state. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..969adb88e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1129571 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an FTBFS (Fails To Build From Source) issue with LibreOffice 3.5.7 on armhf in Launchpad's build environment. They suspect QEMU is involved. + +The error code mentioned is 132, which they break down as 128 + 4. From what I remember, Unix-like systems use exit codes where 128 is the base for signals. Adding 4 would make it 132, which corresponds to signal 4. Signal 4 is SIGILL, which stands for illegal instruction. That suggests that the process received an illegal instruction error. + +Looking at the context, they think it's related to QEMU. QEMU is an emulator, and when running binaries for a different architecture (like armhf), it emulates the CPU. An illegal instruction error here could mean that QEMU is encountering an instruction it can't emulate. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the error is about an illegal instruction (SIGILL), which is a specific type of faulty instruction, the category should be "instruction". The problem seems to stem from QEMU not handling a particular ARM instruction correctly during the build process. So the classification here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e9505145d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report titled "Incorrect implementation of vmsumudm instruction" and wants me to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The instruction category is for when the bug is about a specific instruction being faulty. The syscall category is for errors related to system calls. Runtime is for other runtime errors not covered by the first two. + +The bug report mentions the vmsumudm instruction. That sounds like a specific assembly instruction, possibly related to vector operations. The term "incorrect implementation" suggests that the instruction isn't working as intended. Since the issue is directly about an instruction's implementation, this fits under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of system calls or runtime errors here. So the answer should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156313 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156313 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7f2b6091f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1156313 @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. I need to classify this bug report into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug report is about QEMU, specifically mentioning issues with x86-64 flags handling. The main problem seems to be related to the ADX feature (ADOX and ADCX instructions) not working properly, leading to incorrect behavior in user processes and spurious signals. + +The test case provided uses assembly code with ADX instructions, and the issue is tied to how QEMU handles the CPU flags during execution. The user mentions that the problem occurs during context switches, where QEMU might be incorrectly managing the flags state. + +The categories are: +- Instruction: If the bug is about a specific CPU instruction being mishandled. +- Syscall: If the issue is related to system calls. +- Runtime: Other runtime errors not fitting the above. + +Since the bug is directly related to the execution of specific x86-64 instructions (ADOX/ADCX) and how QEMU emulates the CPU flags for these instructions, this seems to fall under the "instruction" category. The problem isn't about system calls but rather about incorrect handling of CPU instructions and their side effects (like flags). The runtime category is for other runtime errors, but since the core issue is the instruction execution, instruction is the right choice. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7da309df2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1178 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is asking about whether the RISC-V64 `feq.s` instruction should only consider the lowest 32 bits. They also want to classify a bug report related to QEMU into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what `feq.s` does. `feq.s` is a floating-point compare instruction in RISC-V. The `.s` suffix indicates it's for single-precision floats. Comparing floating points usually involves checking if the values are equal, which would be done using their 32-bit representations. + +Now, the question is whether this instruction should only look at the lowest 32 bits. Since it's a single-precision float, the instruction would operate on 32-bit values. In RISC-V, when you have a 64-bit register (like in RISC-V64), but the instruction is for a 32-bit operation, it's possible that the upper 32 bits are ignored. For example, when using a 32-bit float instruction, the upper 32 bits of the register might not be considered. So, if the `feq.s` is using a register that has more than 32 bits, the instruction would only use the lower 32 bits for the comparison. That makes sense because the upper bits wouldn't be part of the single-precision float value. + +Next, the classification part. The bug report is part of QEMU. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue here is about the behavior of the `feq.s` instruction. If the bug is due to the instruction not correctly handling the lower 32 bits, then it's an instruction-related error. The problem isn't with a system call (which would be syscall) or something that happens during runtime like a crash (which would be runtime). So, the classification would be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1221966 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1221966 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2d666e682 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1221966 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is experiencing a SIGSEGV when running 'ls' under QEMU on a SunOS 5.8 box emulated in RHEL 6.4. They tried different QEMU versions and even a static binary, but it still segfaults. The GDB backtrace points to static_code_gen_buffer in cpu_tb_exec. + +Hmm, the stack trace shows the crash is happening in the code generation buffer. The function cpu_tb_exec is part of QEMU's execution core. The static_code_gen_buffer is likely related to how QEMU translates guest instructions into host code. A segmentation fault here suggests that there's an invalid memory access during this translation or execution process. + +Since the problem occurs when executing the guest binary (like 'ls'), it's probably related to how QEMU is handling the instructions from the guest OS. This doesn't look like a syscall issue because the backtrace is in the execution path, not in system call handling. Also, the user mentioned trying different QEMU versions, which might point to a persistent issue in the instruction execution or code generation part of QEMU. So, this seems like an 'instruction' category bug. The faulty instruction translation or execution is causing the segfault. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1233225 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1233225 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8bd7b8f83 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1233225 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this QEMU bug report. The user is having an issue where a float division in a MIPS/MIPSel Linux binary runs correctly in full emulation but gives the wrong result in QEMU user mode. The problem is specifically with the division resulting in 2.0 instead of 0.5 when using QEMU user mode. + +First, I need to recall what QEMU user mode does. It allows running binaries from another architecture on the host system without emulating the whole OS. So, for example, running a MIPS binary on an x86 host. The user mentioned that when they run the same binary in a fully emulated Debian environment (using QEMU system mode), it works correctly. But when using QEMU user mode, it's broken. + +The key here is that the issue is related to floating-point division. The code is straightforward: dividing an integer by a double. The problem is that the result is wrong in user mode. Since the same binary works when run natively or in full emulation, the problem is specific to QEMU's user mode emulation. + +Now, thinking about possible causes. Floating-point operations can be tricky. QEMU user mode needs to correctly emulate the CPU's floating-point unit (FPU). If the FPU emulation is incorrect, especially for division, that could lead to such errors. This would fall under the "instruction" category because it's about the correct execution of CPU instructions. The division instruction for floating-point might not be handled properly in QEMU's user mode for MIPS. + +Another angle: syscalls. But in this code, the main operation is a floating-point calculation, not a system call. The printf is a standard function that uses syscalls, but the division itself is part of the program's logic, not a syscall. So the issue isn't with a specific system call but with how the instruction (specifically, the floating-point division instruction) is executed by QEMU in user mode. + +Runtime errors could be things like dynamic linking issues or library problems, but the user tested the same binary in different environments. The cross-compiled binary works in full emulation and natively, so the problem isn't with the runtime libraries but with the emulation of the CPU instructions in user mode. + +Therefore, the problem is likely due to a faulty emulation of the floating-point division instruction in QEMU's user mode for MIPS. Hence, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..977333975 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1245543 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the SSE4.1 instructions pmovzxbw and similar. The problem is that the implementation in QEMU isn't correctly handling these instructions. Specifically, the instruction is supposed to zero-extend 8-bit elements to 16 bits, but QEMU is only applying it to the first element and zeroing the rest. The test program shows different outputs between real hardware and QEMU. + +So, the categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about incorrect execution of a specific CPU instruction, which is part of the SSE4.1 instruction set. Since it's directly related to the instruction's implementation in QEMU's CPU emulator, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of system calls or runtime environments like memory management or threading issues here. The core issue is the instruction emulation being wrong. So the answer should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1246990 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1246990 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..be4221dd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1246990 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is running into a segmentation fault when using QEMU to execute the rjsupplicant binary. The error message says "qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped". + +First, looking at the backtrace from GDB, the stack trace points to QEMU's code, specifically in functions like static_code_gen_buffer, cpu_tb_exec, and cpu_x86_exec. These seem to be part of QEMU's execution core. The segmentation fault occurs during the execution of the translated code, which makes me think it's related to how QEMU is handling the instructions of the guest binary. + +The user provided a strace log, but since the problem is happening within QEMU itself (as per the backtrace), it's probably not a syscall issue. Syscall errors would typically point to system call handling code in QEMU. The backtrace shows the crash is in the code generation or execution part. + +The instruction-related category would involve QEMU incorrectly translating or executing a specific CPU instruction from the guest x86_64 binary. Since the segmentation fault is happening in the static_code_gen_buffer, which is part of QEMU's dynamic translation process, this suggests that there's an issue with how an instruction is being handled or translated. + +The binary works natively on amd64, so it's not an issue with the binary itself. The problem arises when running under QEMU, which implies a QEMU-specific issue. Given that the crash is during instruction execution and the stack trace points to QEMU's CPU execution core, the most likely category here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..23e2522a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1248 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's s390x emulation. The problem is that certain glibc wide-string functions like wcsbrk, wcsspn, and wcscspn are broken under QEMU user mode. The user mentions that these functions are implemented in optimized assembler in glibc. They don't have access to real hardware to check, but the issue isn't there probably. They also don't know which specific instructions are problematic since they don't know s390x assembly. + +The task is to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let's think about what each category means. + +An "instruction" category would imply that the bug is due to a specific machine instruction not being emulated correctly. Since the problem is with assembler-optimized functions in glibc, and the user suspects that certain instructions aren't working under QEMU, this seems like a possibility. The test case's failure might be due to QEMU not correctly handling a particular s390x instruction used in those functions. + +A "syscall" category would relate to system calls. The problem here isn't about making system calls but about library functions that are implemented in assembly. So probably not a syscall issue. + +"Runtime" is for other runtime errors. However, the description points towards the issue being in the emulation of specific instructions, especially since the functions are optimized with assembly. Since the user says they don't know which instructions are wrong but it's related to the assembler implementations, the root cause is likely an instruction emulation problem in QEMU. + +So the classification here should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ed31d2899 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1251 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to QEMU and the Octeon instruction set. The problem occurs when running a compiled 64-bit binary with QEMU's mips64 emulator, specifically using the Octeon68XX CPU. The error is an illegal instruction, which leads to a core dump. + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The error message mentions an "Illegal instruction," which suggests that QEMU is encountering an instruction it doesn't recognize or can't emulate properly. The user also mentions a patch related to the BBIT instruction, which is part of the Octeon's specific instruction set. Since the issue is about QEMU not handling a particular instruction correctly, this would be an "instruction" category bug. + +Syscall issues usually involve system calls not being handled correctly, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are more general, like memory issues or program flow problems, but the core of this problem is the emulation of a specific instruction. So the correct classification should be "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9382bb41b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1254786 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is trying to run a Debian sid m68k chroot using qemu-m68k-static on an Ubuntu Precise host. The error they're getting is "illegal instruction ebc0 during debootstrap second stage". + +First, the error message mentions an illegal instruction with the hex code ebc0. That immediately makes me think it's related to the CPU instructions. The QEMU emulator is supposed to translate the m68k instructions to the host's architecture, but in this case, it's hitting an instruction it doesn't recognize or can't emulate. + +Looking at the backtrace, the PC (program counter) is at address f67e5662, and the instruction there is causing a problem. The registers are shown, but the key part is the illegal instruction. Since the error occurs during the second stage of debootstrap, which is part of setting up the chroot environment, it's possible that some binary being run in the chroot is using an m68k instruction that QEMU's user-mode emulation doesn't support or has a bug in handling. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the error is directly about an illegal instruction (ebc0), and the problem is that QEMU can't execute that specific instruction, this falls under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of a syscall failing, and it's not a general runtime error but specifically an invalid or unhandled CPU instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..37ca99144 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this QEMU bug report. The user says that qemu-i386 is crashing with a segmentation fault when running binaries compiled with TinyGo for 386 architecture. They provided some backtraces from different versions of QEMU. + +Looking at the problem description, the main issue seems to be related to QEMU's handling of the i386 architecture. The backtraces mention functions like cpu_ldub_code and translator_loop, which are part of QEMU's execution engine. The segmentation fault occurs when trying to access a protected address (like 0x8000 in one backtrace). + +The user mentions that qemu-x86_64 and qemu-arm work fine, which suggests the problem is specific to the i386 target. The error in the older version (5.2.0) points to the translation process of instructions (disas_insn, gen_intermediate_code), which is part of how QEMU translates guest instructions to host instructions. + +The terms like "translator_loop", "gen_intermediate_code", and "cpu_ldub_code" are all related to the instruction translation and execution process in QEMU. The segmentation fault during this process implies that there's an issue with how the i386 instructions are being translated or executed. + +The "instruction" category is for bugs where a specific instruction is faulty. Since the problem here seems to be during the translation or execution of instructions for the i386 architecture, this fits under the "instruction" category. There's no direct mention of a syscall failing, so it's not the "syscall" category. The runtime category is for other runtime errors, but the backtraces point to instruction handling, which is more specific. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9870dc6a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1267955 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is talking about the Parity Flag not being set correctly when using the xor %eax, %eax instruction in QEMU. They tested it with different versions and provided steps to reproduce. + +First, I remember that the parity flag in x86 architecture is set based on the least significant byte of the result. If there's an even number of 1s in that byte, the parity flag is set; otherwise, it's cleared. + +Now, when you do xor %eax, %eax, the result is zero. The least significant byte here is 0x00, which has zero 1s. Zero is even, so the parity flag should be set. But the user is saying that QEMU isn't setting it, but when they replace it with sub %eax, %eax, it works. That suggests that QEMU's emulation of the xor instruction might have a bug related to the parity flag calculation. + +Since the issue is about how the instruction (xor) affects the parity flag, and it's specific to QEMU's handling of that instruction, this would fall under an instruction-related bug. The problem isn't with a system call or runtime environment but with the CPU instruction emulation itself. + +So the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dfda9f4f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1283519 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's PowerPC user-mode emulation where certain Altivec rounding instructions are being misrecognized. Specifically, vrfim is seen as vrfiz, vrfin as vrfim, and vrfiz as vrfin. The vrfip is okay. + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem is about the instructions themselves not being correctly mapped. The user is saying that when the binary uses these instructions, QEMU is decoding them as different ones. That sounds like an issue with how the instructions are implemented in QEMU's translator or decoder. Since it's about the instruction decoding or execution, this would be an "instruction" category bug. + +Syscall is about system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors usually refer to issues during execution, perhaps memory management or other runtime environments, but here the problem is the instruction mapping. So instruction is the right category here. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dd9381ac2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1308381 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU where it's throwing an illegal instruction error when running some ARMv8 AArch64 code that uses specific intrinsics. The intrinsics in question are vqmovunh_s16, vqmovuns_s32, and vqmovund_s64. The user mentions that these get compiled into SQXTUN instructions with different operand sizes. + +The key point here is that QEMU is the one that's not handling these instructions correctly. The user tested with both GCC and Clang, so the problem isn't with the compiler. The error is happening at runtime when QEMU tries to emulate the instruction. The user is asking if this is a bug in QEMU. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. The options are to categorize the bug as one of these. Since the issue is about QEMU not recognizing or correctly emulating specific instructions (SQXTUN), this would fall under the "instruction" category. The problem is directly related to the handling of a particular instruction, which QEMU doesn't support yet. The other options don't fit here. It's not a syscall issue, and while it's a runtime error, the root cause is the instruction emulation. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1311614 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1311614 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3004b37e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1311614 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having a problem where qemu-arm is segfaulting when they use certain commands like rpm, rpm2cpio, etc., after upgrading gcc from 4.8.3 to 4.9.0. They mentioned that downgrading back to 4.8.3 fixes the issue. The question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what's causing the segfault. The key here is that the issue started after a gcc version change. GCC 4.9.0 might generate code that QEMU's emulator isn't handling correctly. Since QEMU emulates the ARM architecture, it needs to correctly interpret the machine instructions generated by the compiler. If the newer GCC version is producing instructions that QEMU doesn't handle properly, that would be an instruction-related issue. + +The user tried rebuilding QEMU with GCC 4.9.0 and from various sources, but the problem persists. That suggests that the problem isn't with QEMU's compilation but rather how it's handling the binaries compiled with GCC 4.9.0. So, maybe QEMU is missing support for some instruction patterns introduced or changed in GCC 4.9.0. For example, maybe the newer GCC is using a certain ARM instruction that QEMU doesn't emulate correctly, leading to a segfault when that instruction is executed. + +Another possibility is a runtime error, but runtime errors usually refer to issues during program execution that aren't directly tied to instruction handling, like memory management or library issues. However, since the problem is specifically tied to the generated code from a different compiler version, it's more likely related to the instructions themselves. + +Syscall errors involve system calls, but the segfault here is happening in QEMU, which is the emulator. The segfault is likely due to QEMU crashing when processing certain instructions from the binaries compiled with GCC 4.9.0. Therefore, the root cause is probably that QEMU isn't correctly emulating a specific instruction that the newer GCC is using. + +So the category here should be "instruction" because the bug is related to QEMU not handling certain machine instructions generated by the newer GCC version correctly, leading to a segmentation fault. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..86281e5c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1328996 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to QEMU's handling of the AArch64 instruction set. Specifically, when using the blr instruction with x30 (LR) as the operand, the result is incorrect. The problem is that the "bad" executable, which uses blr x30, doesn't print "func" as expected, but works on the actual device. The "good" executable uses blr x9 and works correctly. + +The ARMv8 manual says there's no restriction on using x30 with blr. So, the issue must be in QEMU's emulation of that instruction. The instruction blr is a branch with link, which is used for calling subroutines. The x30 register is the link register (LR), which usually holds the return address. But using blr x30 would mean branching to the address stored in LR, which is a valid operation. However, QEMU might be mishandling this case, perhaps not preserving the LR correctly when it's used as both the target and the source of the branch. + +This seems to be an error in how QEMU executes the instruction, which would fall under the "instruction" category. The problem isn't a system call (so not syscall), nor is it a general runtime error (so not runtime). The core issue is that the specific instruction is being processed incorrectly by QEMU's emulator. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ab6cb83ca --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1339 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The error occurs when executing specific RISC-V vector instructions: vsetvli and vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w. The assertion failure is in translate.c, line 212, function decode_save_opc, with the message about ctx->insn_start not being NULL. + +The problem seems to be when the vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w instruction is executed. The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Since the issue is about a specific instruction (vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w) not being handled correctly by QEMU, leading to an assertion failure during execution, this would fall under the "instruction" category. The problem is with the instruction decoding or execution in QEMU's emulator. There's no mention of a syscall here, and runtime errors are more general, but since the problem is directly tied to the instruction processing, "instruction" is the correct classification. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1357226 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1357226 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..82be7e5af --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1357226 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a segmentation fault in QEMU when running certain commands inside a pbuilder environment. The error is "qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped". The steps involve creating a pbuilder chroot, logging in, installing imagemagick, and then trying to convert an image. The key point here is that the segmentation fault is happening within QEMU. + +First, I need to recall what QEMU does. QEMU is an emulator, so when you run ARM binaries on an x86 machine, QEMU translates the ARM instructions to x86. If there's a segmentation fault, it could be due to a problem in the emulation process. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for faulty instructions described in the bug. The syscall is about errors with system calls. Runtime is for other runtime errors. + +The segmentation fault here is caught by QEMU, which is the emulator. Since the error is a signal (SIGSEGV) that QEMU is handling, and it's related to the execution of the target (ARM) instructions, this might be an instruction issue. However, segmentation faults can also be caused by incorrect memory access when translating or executing instructions. Since the error is a signal related to a bad instruction or memory access during emulation, it's likely an issue with how QEMU is handling the target's instructions. Therefore, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. Alternatively, if it's a problem with the host's system call handling, maybe syscall, but in this case, it's the emulation process causing the segfault, so instruction seems right. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1368 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1368 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a962c8cb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1368 @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an unexpected value in the RAX register when executing certain instructions in QEMU. The problem seems to involve the MOV instruction. Let me go through the steps again. + +First, they execute "mov -0x8(%rbp), %rax". The memory at RBP-0x8 is 0x7fedf, so RAX becomes 0x7fedf. Then they have a "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)" instruction. But after that, RAX changes to 0x7fefe, which is one less than expected. Wait, but looking at the steps again, after executing the first MOV, RAX is 0x7fedf. Then the next instruction is supposed to be moving 0xb8000 into the address pointed by RAX. But the user says that after executing that instruction, RAX becomes 0x7fefe. But according to the steps, after the first instruction, RAX is 0x7fedf, which is correct. + +Wait, but then in step 5, the instruction changes from "movq" to "movl", and after executing the "movl", RAX changes to 0x7fede. Hmm. Wait, maybe there's a typo in the problem description. Let me check again. + +In step 1, the code is: +0x2202 <vga_init+12>: mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax +0x2206 <vga_init+16>: movq $0xb8000,(%rax) + +In step 5, the code address is 0x2207, and the instruction is "movl $0xb8000, (%rax)". Wait, but why did the instruction change from movq to movl? That's odd. The user says that after executing the first instruction (movq), the code changed. That might be a mistake in the problem description, or maybe a misunderstanding. Or perhaps there's a typo in the problem statement. Alternatively, maybe the instruction is being modified at runtime, which would be a problem. But that's unlikely unless there's self-modifying code involved. + +Alternatively, perhaps the user made a mistake in the steps. Because the first instruction is at 0x2206, which is a movq. Then after executing that instruction, the next instruction is at 0x2207. But the instruction at 0x2207 is supposed to be part of the same original code. However, the user says that the instruction changed from "movq xx, xx" to "movl xx, xx". But that would imply that the code is being modified during execution, which could be an error in QEMU's emulation of the instruction set. Or perhaps there's a misunderstanding in how the instructions are being disassembled. + +Wait, maybe the problem is that the instruction is not being correctly decoded. For example, if the instruction encoding is such that the MOVQ and MOVL have different lengths, then after executing the first instruction, the next instruction's address might be miscalculated. For example, if the first instruction is 2 bytes, then the PC (program counter) would point to 0x2202 + 2 = 0x2204. But in the problem statement, the next instruction is at 0x2206, which suggests that the first instruction is 4 bytes long. Wait, the first instruction is "mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax". Let me check the x86 instruction encoding. The MOV instruction from memory to RAX would be something like 48 8b 85 ... (for a 64-bit operand size). The displacement is 0x8, so the instruction length would be 1 (opcode) + modr/m (1 byte) + displacement (4 bytes?), maybe. So maybe the instruction is 6 bytes long. For example, 0x48 0x8b 0x85 (opcode and modr/m) followed by 0xf8 ff ff ff (for -0x8 displacement). So that's 6 bytes. If the first instruction is at 0x2202, then the next instruction would be at 0x2208. But in the problem description, the next instruction is at 0x2206. That suggests that the disassembly might be incorrect. If the initial disassembly is wrong, perhaps the PC is not advanced correctly, leading to the next instruction being misaligned, which could cause the instruction to be misdecoded. For example, if the first instruction is actually shorter than expected, then the PC would point to the middle of the next instruction. Then, when trying to execute the next instruction, it's being read as a different instruction. + +In the problem statement, after executing the first instruction (which is at 0x2202), the next instruction is at 0x2206. Then, when looking at the instruction at $pc (0x2206), it's a "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)". But after execution, when looking again, the instruction is at 0x2207 and is a "movl". This suggests that the instruction pointer (PC) advanced by only 1 byte. That would happen if the instruction at 0x2206 is 1 byte long. But why would that instruction be 1 byte? The instruction "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)" is a MOV instruction with a 64-bit immediate to memory. The encoding for that would be 48 (REX.W for 64-bit operand), 89 (MOV), but wait, no. Wait, the instruction is moving an immediate value to memory. So the correct instruction is "movabs", which in x86 is encoded with a 32-bit immediate, but for 64-bit, it's a 48-bit immediate? Wait, no. The x86 instruction set doesn't have a "movq" mnemonic in the sense of moving a 64-bit immediate. The correct instruction to move a 64-bit immediate into a register is "movabs", but when moving to memory, it's a bit different. Wait, actually, the instruction "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)" would be encoded as a MOV instruction with a 32-bit immediate, but sign-extended to 64 bits. Wait, but $0xb8000 is a 20-bit address. However, in x86-64, when you use an immediate with a MOV to memory, the immediate is 32 bits (for movl) or 64 bits (for movabs). But in the case of "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)", I think that's not a valid instruction. The "movq" mnemonic is typically used for moving data between registers or memory, but when using an immediate, it's usually "mov $imm, ...". The "q" suffix just indicates the operand size. So the instruction "mov $0xb8000, (%rax)" would be a 64-bit MOV, which is encoded with a 32-bit immediate (sign-extended to 64 bits). So the encoding would be something like 48 c7 00 00 b8 00 00. That's 7 bytes. So if the instruction at 0x2206 is 7 bytes long, then after executing it, the PC would be at 0x2206 + 7 = 0x220d. But the user says that after executing the instruction at 0x2206, the next instruction is at 0x2207. That suggests that the instruction length was miscalculated. If the emulator (QEMU) is not correctly calculating the instruction length, then the PC would be pointing to the wrong address, leading to the next instruction being misdecoded. + +In the problem description, after executing the instruction at 0x2206, the next instruction is at 0x2207. The user then looks at the instruction at $pc (0x2207) and sees "movl $0xb8000, (%rax)". But the original instruction was supposed to be "movq". So this suggests that the PC advanced by only 1 byte, leading to the next instruction being read as a different instruction. This would be a problem in the instruction decoding or execution in QEMU. The instruction length is not being correctly calculated, causing the PC to be wrong. Therefore, when the next instruction is fetched, it's being interpreted as a different instruction (movl instead of movq), which could lead to incorrect execution. + +This seems like an issue with how QEMU is handling the instruction decoding or execution, leading to the wrong instruction being executed and possibly altering the RAX register in an unexpected way. The user's problem is that RAX ends up being 0x7fefe instead of 0x7fedf. However, the RAX value is modified after the instruction that's supposed to write to memory. The instruction "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)" would write the value 0xb8000 to the memory address in RAX. But according to the user, after executing this instruction, RAX changes to 0x7fefe. But that doesn't make sense unless the instruction is actually modifying RAX. However, the instruction "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)" should not modify RAX. So why is RAX changing? + +Wait, perhaps the user made a mistake in the problem description. Let me check again. The user says that after executing the first instruction (mov -0x8(%rbp), %rax), RAX is 0x7fedf. Then, executing the next instruction (movq $0xb8000, (%rax)) should write to memory at address 0x7fedf. But after that, the user says RAX becomes 0x7fefe, which is 1 less. However, the instruction shouldn't change RAX. Unless there's a mistake in the instruction encoding. For example, if the instruction is actually a different instruction that does modify RAX. But how? + +Alternatively, perhaps the instruction pointer is wrong, leading to the next instruction being executed incorrectly. For example, if the first instruction is longer than expected, and the PC is advanced by the wrong amount. Then, when the next instruction is executed, it's a different instruction that does modify RAX. + +In the problem description, after executing the first instruction (0x2202), the next instruction is at 0x2206. The instruction is "movq $0xb8000, (%rax)". Let's assume that this instruction is 7 bytes long. So after executing it, the PC should be at 0x2206 + 7 = 0x220d. But the user says that after executing it, the next instruction is at 0x2207. That suggests that the PC was advanced by only 1 byte. So the instruction at 0x2206 was only 1 byte long. But that's impossible for a "movq" instruction. So this implies that QEMU's instruction decoder is not correctly calculating the instruction length. As a result, the PC is pointing to 0x2206 + 1 = 0x2207, and the next instruction is being decoded as "movl $0xb8000, (%rax)". + +But why would this happen? If the instruction at 0x2206 is not correctly decoded, perhaps because the decoder in QEMU is not handling the instruction correctly. For example, perhaps it's decoding a different instruction that is only 1 byte long, leading to the PC being advanced incorrectly. Then, when the next instruction is executed, which is actually part of the original instruction's encoding, it's misinterpreted as a different instruction. + +In this case, the problem is that the instruction decoding is incorrect, leading to the wrong instruction being executed. The result is that the RAX register is modified in an unexpected way. Therefore, this is a bug related to the instruction execution in QEMU. + +The user's problem is caused by QEMU incorrectly decoding the instruction length, leading to incorrect instructions being executed. This would fall under the "instruction" category, as the error is in the execution of the instruction due to incorrect decoding. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c1f46c5e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1370 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to the BLSI and BLSR instructions in QEMU. The problem is that the results, specifically the CF flag, are opposite to what the CPU does. + +First, I need to recall what BLSI and BLSR do. BLSI (Bit Lowest Set Isolate) isolates the lowest set bit in a register. BLSR (Bit Lowest Set Reset) clears that lowest set bit. Both instructions also set the carry flag (CF) based on the bit they operate on. + +The user says that when they compile and run the code with these instructions, the CF flag's value is the opposite of what the actual CPU would set. They tested this by comparing the QEMU result with the CPU's. + +The steps to reproduce involve compiling a simple assembly snippet and comparing the results. The issue is specifically with how the instructions are emulated in QEMU. + +Since the problem is about the incorrect behavior of the instructions (BLSI and BLSR) in QEMU, particularly their effect on the CF flag, this points to an error in how these instructions are implemented in QEMU's instruction emulation. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since it's directly about the instruction's semantics being wrong, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8e30446e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1371 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU. The problem is with the BLSMSK instruction's semantics, specifically the CF flag value differing between the actual CPU and QEMU. The steps to reproduce involve compiling some assembly code and comparing the results. The additional info mentions KAIST SoftSec found this. + +I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The categories are for QEMU. + +The issue is about an instruction (BLSMSK) not behaving correctly in QEMU compared to the real CPU. The CF flag is wrong. Since BLSMSK is an x86 instruction, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment but specifically with how QEMU emulates that particular instruction. So the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e4ca2e122 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1373 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The problem is about the ADOX and ADCX instructions having different results between the CPU and QEMU, specifically with the OF flag. The steps to reproduce involve compiling some assembly code and comparing the flag values. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is clearly about the execution of specific CPU instructions (ADOX and ADCX) and how QEMU handles them compared to actual hardware. Since ADOX and ADCX are x86 instructions, and the problem is in their semantic implementation within QEMU, this falls under the "instruction" category. The bug isn't related to system calls or runtime environments but rather the correct simulation of CPU instructions. The mention of QEMU in the additional info also points to an instruction-level emulation issue. So, the correct classification is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..04e021240 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1374 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's BZHI instruction not matching the CPU's result. The problem is that after executing BZHI, QEMU's RAX and SF flags are different from the actual CPU. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is clearly about the BZHI instruction's behavior. The bug arises because the instruction's implementation in QEMU is incorrect compared to the real CPU. + +Syscall would involve system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are other issues during execution, but the root cause here is the instruction's semantics being wrong. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8a8ce3812 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1375 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to SSE/SSE2/SSE3 instructions handling NaN values differently than the actual CPU. They provided a code example where after using the addsubps instruction, the result in xmm1[3] differs between QEMU and the real CPU. The problem is specifically about the semantic behavior of these instructions when dealing with NaNs as per Intel's manual. + +First, I need to determine which category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The issue is with the execution of a specific instruction (addsubps here) not following the defined semantics for handling NaNs. The problem isn't with a system call or runtime environment but with how the instruction itself is emulated in QEMU. Since the bug is about the incorrect behavior of an SSE instruction, the correct category should be "instruction". + +Syscall would be if the problem was related to system calls, like incorrect handling of syscalls or their parameters. Runtime errors could be things like memory management issues or other runtime exceptions, but here it's about instruction execution semantics. So definitely, this is an instruction-related bug. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..663fc01db --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1376 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU crashing when executing certain x86 instructions, specifically LSL and LAR. The problem is that according to the manual, when these instructions encounter an invalid segment descriptor, they should clear the ZF flag and not load a value. On real hardware, it seems to do nothing (like a NOP), but QEMU crashes instead. + +The task is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the issue is with the LSL and LAR instructions. The problem arises from how QEMU handles these instructions compared to actual CPU behavior. The bug is about the incorrect handling of these specific instructions. Since the manual describes the expected behavior of the instructions and QEMU's implementation doesn't match that, it's an issue with the instruction emulation in QEMU. + +Syscall is about system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are other issues during execution, but here the core issue is the instruction's emulation being wrong. So the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1377 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1377 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ebcbbf0aa --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1377 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to the CVTSD2SS instruction in QEMU. The problem occurs when this instruction is used and the memory access crosses a page boundary. They mention that QEMU crashes but the actual CPU doesn't. The example code uses mmap to map a specific address and then an assembly instruction that accesses a memory location near the end of the page. + +So, the key here is the instruction CVTSD2SS. The issue is that QEMU is trying to access memory beyond the valid page when executing this instruction. Since the instruction is responsible for converting a double-precision to single-precision float, but the problem arises from how QEMU handles the memory access during this instruction's execution, especially when it crosses a page boundary. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem is not with a syscall, since the issue is in the execution of the CVTSD2SS instruction. It's not a general runtime error either. The bug is specifically tied to the handling of this particular instruction in QEMU. Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0ea702038 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1404690 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having a QEMU crash when using a chrooted m68k environment. They mentioned that when they run commands like ls or an invalid command, QEMU crashes with an "Illegal instruction" error. The error message shows some register states and a PC (program counter) value. + +The key part here is the "Illegal instruction: 0000 @ f6fffa30". That suggests that QEMU's emulator encountered an instruction it doesn't recognize or can't handle. Since the user is running m68k code, maybe the specific instruction at that address is not supported by the QEMU version they're using (2.2.0). + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem here seems to be related to an illegal instruction, which points directly to the instruction category. The crash happens because QEMU can't emulate a particular CPU instruction, which would fall under an instruction error. The other options don't fit as well. It's not a syscall issue since the error is about an instruction, and runtime is for other errors, but the explicit mention of illegal instruction makes instruction the right category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1412 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1412 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c5b7e2273 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1412 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a QEMU segfault in the sve_probe_page function when handling ldff1 instructions. They mention that after upgrading to version 7.2.0, QEMU crashes due to a null pointer dereference. The problem seems to be related to the 'full' variable being dereferenced before a check for TLB_INVALID_MASK, which was changed in a specific commit. + +So, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug report talks about a specific instruction (ldff1) causing the issue. The problem arises when executing this instruction with a faulting address. The root cause is a null pointer dereference in the code handling this instruction. + +The 'instruction' category is for bugs related to a specific instruction being faulty. Since the issue is directly tied to the ldff1 instruction's handling in QEMU's SVE code, this seems to fit. The 'runtime' category is for other runtime errors, but here the problem is specifically with the instruction processing. There's no mention of syscalls here, so that's out. Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d244e0944 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1428352 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's SYSRET instruction implementation. The issue is that when returning to user mode, the SS selector isn't being set correctly according to Intel's documentation. The problem is that the code doesn't OR the selector with 3, which sets the RPL (Requested Privilege Level) to 3 (user mode). Without that, the SS selector's privilege level is incorrect, leading to crashes later when interrupts occur. + +So, the bug is in the instruction handling of SYSRET. The code for the instruction is not correctly implementing the required behavior as per Intel's spec. The user mentioned that the helper function helper_sysret() in seg_helper.c is missing the OR 3 step. This is a specific instruction's incorrect implementation. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem is directly about the SYSRET instruction's handling. So it's an "instruction" category bug. The other options are syscall, which would be about system call handling, but this is about a CPU instruction. Runtime is for other runtime errors, but the core issue here is the instruction's incorrect execution. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1435 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1435 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..970ecd158 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1435 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's TCG code having an infinite recursion in the function tcg_gen_mulu2_i32 on certain 32-bit hosts. The problem arises when neither TCG_TARGET_HAS_mulu2_i32 nor TCG_TARGET_HAS_muluh_i32 is available. The steps to reproduce show that tcg_gen_mulu2_i32 calls tcg_gen_mul_i64, which on 32-bit hosts ends up calling back to tcg_gen_mulu2_i32, creating a loop. + +So, the categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue here is about the code generation in TCG, which is part of the emulator's internal handling of instructions. The recursion happens during the generation of code for multiplication operations. Since it's related to how instructions are generated and handled by the TCG (Translation-Compilation Generator), it's an issue with the instruction set or the way instructions are processed. The infinite recursion leads to a runtime error eventually, but the root cause is in the instruction handling logic. Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bb7e0e3b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1441 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU crashing with an assertion failure when executing the RISC-V `vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w` instruction. The problem first appeared in a specific commit. The steps to reproduce involve compiling a C program that uses vector instructions and running it with QEMU. The error occurs in the `decode_save_opc` function, asserting that `ctx->insn_start` is not NULL. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is related to an instruction because the issue arises when emulating a specific RISC-V vector instruction (`vfncvt.rtz.x.f.w`). The assertion failure is during the decoding or execution of that instruction. The problem isn't related to a syscall, as the error happens within the instruction handling code. Also, it's not a general runtime error but specifically tied to the instruction decoding process. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a5203c1e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1452 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user wants me to classify this bug report from QEMU. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug report mentions Tricore support for shuffle and syscall instruction. + +Hmm, the key here is to figure out what the main issue is. The title says "support for shuffle and syscall instruction". So, they're talking about adding or fixing support for these instructions in QEMU for the TriCore architecture. + +Now, the categories: "instruction" is for a faulty instruction described in the report. "Syscall" is for errors related to system calls. "Runtime" is for other runtime errors. + +The bug report is about supporting two specific instructions: shuffle and syscall. The shuffle is an instruction, and syscall is another. But the category options are separate. Since the report is about adding support for these instructions, the primary category here would be "instruction" because it's about the instructions themselves. Even though syscall is mentioned, the category "syscall" is for errors with syscalls, not about supporting the syscall instruction. So the main category here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..afcfe990d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1469342 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's break down the problem. The user is running a binary with an SSE2 instruction (movsd) on QEMU's i386 emulator with the -cpu option set to pentium3. They mention that the QEMU version is from 20150609, which might be relevant because some older versions might not have updated CPU models correctly. + +The key point is that Pentium 3 CPUs only support SSE, not SSE2. So executing an SSE2 instruction should cause an illegal instruction error (SIGILL). However, in this case, the binary runs flawlessly, which is incorrect behavior. + +Now, the task is to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Looking at the categories, the "instruction" category is for when a faulty instruction is involved. Since the issue here is that the CPU model (pentium3) in QEMU isn't correctly handling the SSE2 instruction (movsd) by allowing it to execute without error, this seems to be an issue with the instruction emulation. The CPU model's definition in QEMU might be incorrectly allowing SSE2 instructions even though the real hardware wouldn't. + +The "syscall" category is about system calls, which isn't the case here. The "runtime" category is for other runtime errors, but the core issue is about the CPU model's instruction set support. Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1478 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1478 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e886f88e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1478 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU 7.2.0 crashing when using the core2 architecture with glibc. The problem doesn't occur with QEMU 7.1.0. The boot log shows general protection faults in libc.so.6, leading to a kernel panic. The steps to reproduce involve building a specific Buildroot configuration with core2 target. + +Looking at the error messages: "general protection fault" in libc.so.6. That suggests that the program is encountering an invalid instruction or an illegal memory access. The backtrace points to the C library, which could be due to incorrect CPU emulation. The user did a git bisect and found a specific QEMU commit that introduced the issue. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the error is about a general protection fault, which typically relates to invalid instructions or memory access violations, this seems like an instruction issue. The problem might be that QEMU's emulation of the core2 architecture isn't correctly handling certain instructions that the glibc expects, leading to faults. The fact that reverting QEMU version fixes it suggests a regression in instruction emulation. So the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..df8a5f0db --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1512 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that AVX/AVX2 isn't correctly detected in user mode. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, AVX and AVX2 are instruction sets. So if the issue is about not detecting these instructions properly, it's probably related to the instructions themselves. The problem is in user mode, which might relate to how the emulator handles those instructions. Since the category 'instruction' is for a faulty instruction described in the report, this seems like it fits. The detection issue would be due to incorrect handling of the AVX/AVX2 instructions. It's not a syscall error, and runtime is for other runtime errors. So the answer should be instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1531 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1531 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..35d335d28 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1531 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's emulation of MIPSr6+MSA. They mentioned that several tests are failing when running under QEMU versions 6.2.0 and 7.0.0 on Ubuntu 22.04. The steps to reproduce involve building a specific test binary and running it with qemu-mips64el, which outputs errors. + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem seems to be with the emulation of specific instructions related to MIPSr6 and MSA (MIPS SIMD Architecture). The user points out that the tests fail due to QEMU's emulation problem. Since MSA involves SIMD instructions, it's likely that QEMU isn't correctly emulating those specific instructions. The fact that older QEMU versions (like 4.1.0) from the cross-compiler package don't show this issue suggests that newer versions have a regression in instruction emulation. + +Syscall errors would relate to system calls made by the program, but the problem here is about instruction execution. Runtime errors are broader, but the key here is that the emulation of certain instructions is broken. Therefore, this should be classified under 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1e48d2f7f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1536 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that certain test programs using specific instructions like vextractbm, vextracthm, etc., fail on qemu-ppc64 but not on qemu-ppc64le. The problem is related to QEMU, so I need to figure out which category it falls into: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the issue is with specific assembly instructions. The test programs use these vector extract instructions, and they fail when run under QEMU for PPC64 big-endian. Since the problem doesn't occur on the little-endian version (qemu-ppc64le), it might be that QEMU's emulation of these particular instructions is incorrect for the big-endian mode. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is directly related to the execution of specific CPU instructions and their correct emulation by QEMU, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall issue because it's about instruction execution, not system calls. It's also not a general runtime error but specifically about the correctness of the instruction emulation. So the answer should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1541 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1541 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1e2a1c040 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1541 @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the G_NORETURN macro in Clang version 15. The problem is that the order of 'extern' and 'G_NORETURN' in the code is causing a compilation error. The error message says that an attribute list can't appear there. + +Looking at the code snippet, they have 'extern G_NORETURN' followed by the function declaration. The error is pointing out that the attribute (G_NORETURN) is in the wrong place. The macro G_NORETURN expands to [[noreturn]], which is a C++ attribute. In C++, the [[noreturn]] attribute has to come right before the function's return type, not after the extern keyword. + +So, the issue is about the syntax of the function declaration. The 'extern' is part of the linkage specification, and attributes like [[noreturn]] need to be placed correctly. The correct order would be to have the attribute before the return type. For example, G_NORETURN should be placed right before the function's return type. + +The user mentioned switching 'extern' with 'G_NORETURN' fixes it. So changing it to 'G_NORETURN extern' might not be the right approach. Wait, actually, no. Wait, the correct placement is that attributes like [[noreturn]] go after the function's return type. Wait, no, in C++, the [[noreturn]] is applied to the function, so it should be placed before the function's return type. For example: + +[[noreturn]] void func(); + +So in the original code, 'extern G_NORETURN void...' would be 'extern' followed by the attribute, but the attribute should come before the return type. So the correct order should be G_NORETURN (which is [[noreturn]]) followed by 'extern'? Or is 'extern' part of the function's type? + +Wait, 'extern' is a storage class specifier. In C++, the order of specifiers is important. The attribute is a function attribute, which in Clang's case, when using the [[noreturn]], it should be placed right before the function's return type. But when you have 'extern', which is a storage class, the attribute should come after the storage class? Or before? + +In C++, the standard says that function attributes (like [[noreturn]]) are part of the function's declarator. So the correct syntax would be to have the storage class (like extern) first, then the function's attributes, but wait, no. Wait, in C++, attributes can be placed in various positions. Let me think of an example. Suppose you have: + +extern [[noreturn]] void foo(); + +Is that valid? Or should it be [[noreturn]] extern void foo();? + +I think in C++, the [[noreturn]] is a function attribute, so it should come after the type qualifiers but before the function name. Wait, no. The [[noreturn]] is a function-level attribute. So in the declaration, it's part of the function declarator. So the correct syntax would be to place it after the return type. For example: + +void [[noreturn]] foo(); // Not correct. + +No, in C++, [[noreturn]] is placed before the function's return type. Wait, no, actually, in C++11, the [[noreturn]] is a function attribute, which is part of the function's declaration. The correct placement is that it comes after any storage class specifiers (like extern) and before the function's return type. Wait, no, maybe the other way around. + +Let me check. Suppose you have: + +extern void foo() noexcept; // Here, 'noexcept' is part of the function's exception specification, which is part of the function declarator. + +Similarly, [[noreturn]] is a function attribute. So, the correct order would be: + +extern [[noreturn]] void foo(); + +But in C++, the 'extern' is a storage class specifier, and attributes like [[noreturn]] come after that. However, in C++, the [[noreturn]] is placed before the function's return type. Wait, maybe I'm getting confused between C and C++. + +In C, the [[noreturn]] is a function attribute and is placed after the function's return type. For example, in GCC's C mode, you might write: + +void foo(void) __attribute__((noreturn)); + +But in C++, the [[noreturn]] is a standard attribute and is placed before the function's return type. Wait, no, in C++, the [[noreturn]] is a prefix attribute. For example: + +[[noreturn]] void foo(); + +So in this case, the 'extern' is a storage class specifier, and the [[noreturn]] is an attribute that applies to the function. So the correct order is to have the storage class first, then the attributes, then the return type. Wait, no. The storage class is part of the declaration specifiers. The function attributes are also part of the declaration specifiers. The order between declaration specifiers (like storage class and attributes) might be flexible in C++, but perhaps Clang 15 is stricter. + +In the original code, the code is: + +extern G_NORETURN void qemu_build_not_reached_always(void); + +Expanding G_NORETURN to [[noreturn]], this becomes: + +extern [[noreturn]] void qemu_build_not_reached_always(void); + +But if Clang 15 is expecting the [[noreturn]] to come before the 'extern', but that's not correct. Wait, no. The 'extern' is a storage class specifier, and the [[noreturn]] is an attribute. In C++, attributes are part of the declaration specifiers, and their order might not matter as long as they are in the right place. However, the [[noreturn]] is a function attribute, which in C++ must appear before the function's declarator. Wait, no. The [[noreturn]] is a function-level attribute. In C++, the attribute is part of the declaration specifiers, which can include storage classes, type specifiers, and attributes. The order of declaration specifiers can vary, but certain combinations may not be allowed. + +But the error message says that an attribute list cannot appear there. The problem is that in the code, 'extern' is followed by the attribute. The macro G_NORETURN expands to [[noreturn]], which is an attribute. So the code is 'extern' followed by an attribute. The compiler is complaining that the attribute list (G_NORETURN) cannot appear there. The reason is that in C++, the 'extern' is a storage class specifier, and the attribute must come after the function's return type? Or perhaps the Clang version 15 is enforcing that attributes must come before the storage class specifiers? + +Alternatively, perhaps in this case, the [[noreturn]] is being treated as part of the type, and the 'extern' is a storage class. The correct order is that attributes can appear either before or after the storage class, but in this case, Clang 15 is not allowing it. Maybe the problem is that the [[noreturn]] is being placed after the 'extern', which is not allowed. The solution is to move the G_NORETURN before the 'extern', but that doesn't make sense because 'extern' is a storage class. Wait, no. Wait, in C++, the declaration specifiers can include storage classes and attributes. For example, you can have: + +[[deprecated]] extern int x; + +But maybe in Clang 15, the order is enforced such that attributes must come before storage class specifiers. If the code has 'extern [[noreturn]] ...', but the compiler expects [[noreturn]] to come before 'extern', then that would cause an error. + +But according to the C++ standard, the order of declaration specifiers (like attributes and storage classes) is flexible. However, some compilers may have specific requirements. For example, in this case, the [[noreturn]] is a function attribute, which is part of the declarator. Wait, no. [[noreturn]] is a function attribute, so it's part of the function's declarator. Wait, no. In C++, function attributes are part of the declaration specifiers. For example, [[noreturn]] is a function attribute and is placed in the declaration specifiers. So when you have 'extern [[noreturn]] void func();', the [[noreturn]] is part of the declaration specifiers. However, perhaps Clang 15 is stricter and requires that function attributes must appear before any storage class specifiers. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that the [[noreturn]] is being applied to the function, but in C++, when you have a function declared with 'extern', the attribute must be placed in a certain way. + +In any case, the error is a compilation error due to the placement of the attribute. The user is told that switching 'extern' with 'G_NORETURN' fixes it, which would mean changing it to 'G_NORETURN extern void ...'. But that would be [[noreturn]] extern void ... which might not be correct. Because 'extern' is a storage class and the [[noreturn]] is an attribute. The correct placement is that the attribute should come before the function's return type. + +Wait, perhaps the correct way is to have the [[noreturn]] before the return type. So for a function declared as 'extern void func();', adding [[noreturn]] would be [[noreturn]] extern void func();? Or extern [[noreturn]] void func();? + +I think in C++, the [[noreturn]] is part of the function's declarator, so it should be placed after the function's return type. Wait, no. Let me check an example. Suppose I have a function that is extern and noreturn. How should it be declared? + +In C++, the [[noreturn]] is placed before the function's return type. For example: + +[[noreturn]] void foo(); + +If the function also has an extern storage class, then: + +extern [[noreturn]] void foo(); + +But maybe in Clang 15, this is not allowed, and the correct syntax is [[noreturn]] extern void foo(); ? + +But that would not make sense because 'extern' is a storage class, and [[noreturn]] is an attribute. The correct order might be that the attribute comes after the storage class. But if the compiler is complaining about the attribute appearing there, then perhaps the correct order is the attribute before the storage class. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that in C++, the [[noreturn]] is part of the function's type, and when combined with 'extern', the order is not allowed. + +The user's solution was to switch 'extern' with 'G_NORETURN', which would make the code: + +G_NORETURN extern void ... + +Which expands to [[noreturn]] extern void ... + +But I'm not sure if that's correct. The error was that the attribute list (G_NORETURN) couldn't appear where it was. So moving it before the 'extern' might resolve the issue if the compiler expects attributes to come before storage class specifiers. + +In any case, the root cause is a syntax error due to the placement of the attribute in the function declaration. This is a problem related to the code's syntax and how the compiler parses it. Since the issue is during compilation, it's a build-time error, not a runtime error. It's not related to syscalls or instructions. So the category would be 'instruction'? Wait, no. The 'instruction' category is for a faulty instruction. The 'syscall' is for syscall errors. 'Runtime' is for other runtime errors. + +But the problem here is a compilation error due to incorrect syntax. The categories given are instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the error happens during compilation, it's not a runtime error. The 'instruction' category refers to a faulty instruction in the code, like an invalid machine instruction. But here, it's a syntax/attribute placement issue. None of the categories exactly fit, but perhaps the closest is 'instruction', but I'm not sure. Wait, the categories are defined as: + +- instruction: A faulty instruction is described in the bug report +- syscall: An error with a syscall +- runtime: Other errors which happen in runtime. + +But the error here is a compilation error, which is not at runtime. Since none of the categories explicitly cover build-time syntax errors, perhaps the best fit is 'instruction' if the faulty instruction is causing the problem, but in this case, the problem is about the attribute placement in the function declaration, which is a syntax issue. However, the categories don't have a 'build' or 'syntax' category. The user might have intended 'instruction' to mean a problem with the machine instruction, but here it's a higher-level syntax issue. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is not a runtime error, so it's not in the 'runtime' category. It's not a syscall issue. The 'instruction' category might not be appropriate. However, the options are limited. The error is due to invalid C++ syntax, which is a build-time error, but the categories don't include that. Since the problem is in the code's structure and how it's parsed, perhaps the closest is 'instruction' if the faulty instruction is the placement of the attribute. But I'm not certain. Alternatively, maybe it's a 'runtime' error, but no, it's a compile-time error. + +Wait, the user's example shows a compilation error. The categories don't include a 'build' category. The user's instruction says to respond with one of the three categories. Since it's a build error, but the options are instruction, syscall, runtime, perhaps the correct category is 'instruction' if the faulty instruction is the cause. However, the term 'instruction' usually refers to machine instructions. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is not covered by the given categories. But the user says to choose from the three. Since it's a syntax error during compilation, and none of the categories exactly fit, perhaps the best choice is 'instruction' as a stretch, but I'm not sure. Alternatively, maybe it's a 'runtime' error, but no. The error happens during compilation, so it's not runtime. The 'instruction' category might not be correct. + +Wait, maybe the problem is that the code is generating an invalid instruction due to the attribute placement, leading to a compile error. But that's a stretch. + +Alternatively, perhaps the correct category is 'runtime', but that's not right. Since the error is during compilation, it's not a runtime error. The user's categories might not be perfectly aligned, but given the options, I have to choose the best fit. + +The error is due to incorrect code syntax, leading to a compilation failure. The categories don't include a 'build' or 'syntax' category, so perhaps the closest is 'instruction' if the faulty instruction is the cause. However, 'instruction' usually refers to machine instructions. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is not any of the three, but given the options, the best choice is 'instruction' as a misclassification. Alternatively, perhaps the user intended 'runtime' to include build-time errors that prevent runtime, but that's unclear. + +In conclusion, since the error is during compilation due to incorrect attribute placement, and the categories are limited, the most appropriate category might be 'instruction' if the faulty instruction is the cause. However, I'm not entirely confident. But given the options, I'll go with 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..155a426cc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1547 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's POWER9 emulation when using compiler optimizations with GCC 11.3 and later. The problem is that comparing two floating-point memory operands gives an incorrect result. They provided steps to reproduce, which involve building a test case with -O2 optimization, running it under QEMU with POWER9 CPU, and checking the output. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the problem seems to be related to how QEMU handles certain instructions when optimizations are enabled. The user mentions that the comparison of floating-point values is incorrect. This sounds like an instruction emulation issue. Since the problem occurs specifically with compiler optimizations, maybe the generated code uses certain instructions that QEMU isn't emulating correctly for POWER9. + +Syscall would be if the issue was related to system calls, but the problem here is about floating-point comparisons, which are handled via CPU instructions, not syscalls. Runtime errors could be a possibility, but the description points to the emulation of the instruction itself being broken. + +Looking at the additional info, they cross-linked a similar MIPS bug report, which was classified as 'instruction' in that context. That suggests that for QEMU issues related to CPU instruction emulation, the category is 'instruction'. + +Therefore, the correct category here is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c9f1227cf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1553 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about a build error in QEMU. The specific error is an implicit declaration of the function 'qemu_close_to_socket' in the file spice-core.c. The error occurs when building with MSYS2 on Windows 10 using GCC. + +First, I need to understand what an implicit declaration means. That usually happens when a function is used without a prior declaration or prototype. The compiler hasn't seen a declaration for 'qemu_close_to_socket', so it assumes one, which can lead to errors if the actual definition doesn't match. + +The error messages mention '-Werror=implicit-function-declaration' and '-Werror=nested-externs', which are compiler warnings treated as errors. This is common in projects that enforce strict compilation rules to catch potential issues early. + +Now, looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem here is during the build process, not at runtime. The error is related to the compiler not recognizing the function, which is a compile-time issue. The categories given don't include a compile-time category, but the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Wait, the user's categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem isn't about a syscall, since that would involve system calls. It's not a runtime error either because it's a build error. The 'instruction' category is for faulty instructions described in the bug report. The error is due to the function not being declared, which is a code issue. + +But the instruction category refers to a faulty instruction in the code, like an incorrect assembly instruction or an invalid operation. In this case, the issue is a missing function declaration, which is more about code structure or missing includes. However, the options are limited. Since the error is during build, but the categories don't have a build category, perhaps the closest is 'instruction' because it's a problem in the code's instructions (i.e., the function call is incorrect due to missing declaration). Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime error if the function is expected to exist at runtime but isn't present. However, the error is a compile-time error, so it's not runtime. + +Wait, the problem is that the function 'qemu_close_to_socket' isn't declared. This could be a missing header file include. The code in spice-core.c is calling this function but hasn't included the header where it's declared. So, the code is missing a necessary include, leading to the implicit declaration. This is a code structure issue. Since the categories don't include build or compile-time, but the options are instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The error is a result of the code not being properly structured (missing declaration), so perhaps it's an 'instruction' error because the code's instructions (the function call) are incorrect. The 'instruction' category here might refer to the code's instructions being wrong. Alternatively, if the function is supposed to be part of the system's syscalls, but that's unlikely. + +In QEMU's codebase, functions like qemu_close_to_socket might be part of their internal API. If the function is defined elsewhere but not declared (via a missing include), that's a code issue. Therefore, the error is due to a missing declaration in the source code, making it a code instruction problem. So, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0b8446fd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1574346 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's TCG mode emulating a specific CPU instruction incorrectly for AMD CPUs. The issue is about moving a value into a segment register, specifically %gs. The problem is that when you do a movl from eax to %gs, TCG is setting the base to zero, which works for Intel but not AMD. On AMD, writing zero to %gs via mov should leave the base unchanged. + +So, the question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The options are given. The user wants a single-word response. + +First, I need to determine what each category means. The instruction category is for faulty instructions. The bug here is about the emulation of a specific instruction (movl to %gs) not matching AMD's actual behavior. The syscall category is about system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are other runtime issues, but this is specifically about instruction emulation. + +The bug report is detailing that the instruction's emulation is incorrect for AMD CPUs. Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3de6ac479 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1590336 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's ARM emulator where it doesn't reject a V8-only instruction, specifically vrintz, when it should. They mention that when running on a cortex-a9, which isn't V8, QEMU executes the instruction as if it's supported. The objdump shows the instruction, and QEMU's disassembly output shows something different, like vabal with an illegal width. The problem exists in QEMU 2.6.0. + +So, the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about an instruction not being properly rejected. The core issue is that QEMU isn't handling the instruction correctly based on the CPU version. Since it's about the instruction emulation and the CPU's support for specific instructions, this falls under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't with a syscall or a runtime error but with how the instruction is processed or rejected when it shouldn't be allowed on certain CPUs. Therefore, the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6ddd28759 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1594069 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about SIMD instructions in QEMU. They mention that when running a guest (like using NEON, MMX, SSE, etc.), these SIMD instructions are being translated to scalar instructions on the host instead of using the host's SIMD. That sounds like a performance issue because scalar instructions are slower for these operations. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem here isn't about a faulty instruction per se. It's more about how the instructions are being translated during execution. The user is pointing out that instead of translating to the equivalent SIMD instructions on the host, it's using scalar ones. So it's an issue with the translation process, which would fall under runtime errors or maybe instruction translation. But the categories given are instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The "instruction" category is for a faulty instruction being described. The problem here isn't that an instruction is wrong, but that the translation process isn't optimizing it properly. So maybe it's a runtime error? Or perhaps it's an instruction translation issue. Wait, the categories don't have a specific one for translation. The "instruction" category might be about incorrect instructions being generated, but in this case, the instructions are being translated to scalar instead of SIMD, which is a performance problem but not necessarily a correctness issue. However, the user is reporting that SIMD is not being used, which could be a runtime issue. Hmm. + +The problem is that the translation from guest SIMD to host SIMD isn't happening, leading to scalar instructions. Since it's about how instructions are handled during execution, perhaps it's an "instruction" category issue if the translation is incorrect. But the user isn't saying the instructions are wrong, just that they're not optimized. Wait, the categories are a bit ambiguous. The "runtime" category is for other errors happening at runtime. But maybe the instruction translation is part of the instruction handling. The original problem is that the translation is not using SIMD, which is part of the instruction execution path. So maybe it's an "instruction" category because it's about how the instructions are translated. Alternatively, if the translation is a runtime process, maybe "runtime". + +Looking at the example categories: "instruction" is for a faulty instruction described. If the issue is that the translation is generating scalar instead of SIMD instructions, that's part of the instruction translation, so maybe "instruction". But I'm not entirely sure. However, since the problem is about the translation of instructions and not a system call or a runtime error like a crash, maybe "instruction" is the best fit here. The user is pointing out that the instructions are not being translated correctly (from SIMD to SIMD), leading to performance issues. So the category would be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..11f2f83f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1605123 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the PEXT instruction in QEMU. They mentioned that when using the qemu-x86_64 emulator with the Haswell CPU option, the PEXT instruction returns wrong values, seemingly switching arguments. They also checked the code in translate.c and int_helper.c, and found that the helper function works fine, so the problem might be in the gen_helper_pext call. + +The key points here are that the bug is related to a specific CPU instruction (PEXT) from the BMI2 instruction set. The user tested it on real hardware and QEMU, and there's a discrepancy. Since PEXT is an x86 instruction, and QEMU's emulation of it is incorrect, this falls under an instruction-related bug. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment but specifically with how QEMU handles the PEXT instruction. Also, the user provided evidence pointing to the instruction emulation in QEMU's code. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6f185d9dc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1606 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with RISC-V's FENCE.I instruction not working as expected in QEMU. The problem is that after P0 modifies some code, P1 reads the new code but executes the old one even after a FENCE.I. The test shows that the execution doesn't see the updated code despite the fence. + +So, the question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, FENCE.I is an instruction, right? It's a RISC-V instruction used to ensure instruction cache coherence. The issue here is that the FENCE.I isn't functioning properly. The problem isn't about a system call or runtime environment but about the instruction itself not working as specified. The test is at the user level, but the FENCE.I is a hardware-level instruction. Since QEMU emulates the hardware, this would be an issue with how QEMU handles the FENCE.I instruction. So the bug is in the instruction's implementation within QEMU. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c8d69c18c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1611394 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's PPC emulation. The main issue is about Scalar Single-Precision Floating-Point instructions and the MSR[SPV] bit. According to the SPE Programming Manual, when MSR[SPV] isn't set, those instructions shouldn't trigger an Embedded Floating-Point Unavailable Interrupt. The report points out specific functions in the QEMU code where checks for MSR[SPV] should be removed, and mentions that a macro needs to be split into two versions for efs and efd instructions. + +So, the problem is about how certain instructions are handled in the code. The bug is in the instruction handling logic, specifically the conditions under which interrupts are generated based on the MSR[SPV] bit. The user is suggesting that some tests for MSR[SPV] in the code are incorrect and need to be modified or removed. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue is directly related to the handling of specific CPU instructions (Scalar Single-Precision FPU instructions) and how their execution is controlled by the MSR bit, this falls under the "instruction" category. It's not a syscall issue because it's about CPU instruction execution, nor is it a general runtime error. The problem is with the instruction's behavior based on the MSR flag, so the correct classification here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..afe30e326 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1612 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU related to SVE first-faulting gather loads returning incorrect data. The problem occurs when the target register Zt is the same as the mask register Zm in the ldff1 instruction. The result is that the first element gets duplicated across the vector, and the FFR indicates all elements were loaded successfully. They provided steps to reproduce, including assembly and C code. The issue was introduced in a specific commit and persists in the latest master. The test runs correctly on real hardware but fails in QEMU. + +So, the problem is specifically with the execution of the ldff1d instruction in QEMU's SVE emulation. The incorrect handling of the case where Zt equals Zm suggests that there's a bug in how QEMU translates or executes this particular instruction. Since the bug is tied directly to an instruction's implementation in QEMU, the correct category would be "instruction". It's not a syscall or a runtime error, but an error in the instruction's simulation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..92032c296 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1613817 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to how it handles certain instructions like IRET, LRET, and RET when the return address is non-canonical. The main issue is that on real hardware, the CPU detects the non-canonical IP (instruction pointer) before executing the instruction and triggers a segmentation fault. However, in QEMU, the instruction is allowed to proceed, leading to an attempt to fetch instructions from an invalid address, which then causes the fault. The problem here is that QEMU's emulation isn't matching the real CPU's behavior in terms of validating the address before execution. + +The categories provided are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is about how QEMU emulates specific x86 instructions (IRET, LRET, RET) and their handling of non-canonical addresses, this falls under the "instruction" category. The issue is with the instruction execution and validation process in the emulator. It's not a syscall problem because it's not related to system calls. It's also not a runtime error in the general sense, but specifically about instruction-level emulation. So the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1614348 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1614348 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3707dcadf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1614348 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having a problem where QEMU is core-dumping when running an ARM program. The issue seems to be related to the entry symbol. Let me break this down. + +First, the user compiled a simple "Hello World" program using arm-linux-gnu-gcc. They used the -nostdlib option and linked with -lc. The linker warns that it can't find the entry symbol _start, defaulting to some address. Then when running with QEMU, it prints "Hello World" but then gets an illegal instruction error, leading to a core dump. + +In the second case, when they explicitly link with crt1.o, crti.o, and crtn.o, it works. Those CRT files are part of the C runtime and provide the _start symbol, which is the entry point for the program. So the first case, without those files, the linker isn't finding _start, so it uses a default. That probably means the program isn't properly set up with the correct entry point, leading to QEMU executing invalid instructions when trying to start the program. + +The error here is that without the CRT objects, the program's entry point is incorrect. The illegal instruction (signal 4) suggests that QEMU is trying to execute code at an address that isn't valid for the ARM architecture. Since the entry symbol is missing, the linker picks a default, which might not be aligned properly or might point to a location that doesn't contain valid ARM instructions. This results in QEMU trying to execute invalid instructions, hence the illegal instruction error. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem here is that the program's entry point is incorrect, leading to invalid instructions being executed. So the root cause is a faulty instruction due to the missing entry symbol. Therefore, this should be classified under 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1f3c695f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1620 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the SME FMOPA outer product instruction in QEMU. The problem is that when they use tile 1 (za1.s), the result is all zeros instead of ones, but when using za0.s, it works correctly. + +Hmm, so the code is supposed to compute an outer product of a vector of 1.0s, resulting in a 4x4 matrix of 1.0s. But with za1.s, it's not working. The key here is that the same code works for tile 0 but not tile 1. + +The user mentions that without looking into QEMU's code, it seems like a bug in how elements are set based on the tile number. The instructions involved here are specific to SME (Scalable Matrix Extension), specifically the outer product instruction. Since the issue is dependent on which tile (za0 vs za1) is used, it's likely that the emulator (QEMU) isn't handling the tile selection correctly for the FMOPA instruction. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is with the execution of a specific instruction (FMOPA) and how the emulator handles the tile registers, this would fall under an instruction-related bug. The syscall category is for system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors could include various issues, but since the problem is directly tied to the instruction's implementation in QEMU, the correct category is instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..498da2441 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1637 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a crash when executing the `ucomiss` instruction while emulating an x86-64 CPU on an AArch64 host using QEMU. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to figure out which category this fits into. The problem is specifically related to the `ucomiss` instruction. The `ucomiss` is an x86 SSE instruction used for comparing floating-point values. Since the issue occurs when emulating this instruction on a different architecture (AArch64), it's likely an issue with how QEMU handles that particular instruction during emulation. + +The category "instruction" is for when a specific instruction is causing the problem. Since the bug is tied directly to the execution of `ucomiss`, this seems like the right fit. It's not a syscall because that's more about system calls made by the guest OS. Runtime errors are other issues that happen during execution, but here the problem is clearly linked to a specific instruction's emulation. So the answer should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..421c62c66 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641637 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user provided several code examples that compile with gcc and run on a real machine, but when run under QEMU using qemu-x86_64, they cause an illegal instruction error. + +First, I need to understand why QEMU is reporting an illegal instruction. The code uses inline assembly with instructions like psignb, psignd, psignw, etc. These are part of the SSE instruction set, maybe? Wait, psign is part of SSE3, if I recall correctly. So if QEMU's emulator doesn't support those specific instructions, it would throw an illegal instruction error. + +The user's QEMU version is 2.7.0. Maybe that version of QEMU doesn't emulate certain CPU instructions that are required for these operations. The real machine can execute them because the actual CPU supports them, but QEMU's emulation is missing those instructions. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is that QEMU doesn't recognize or handle specific CPU instructions correctly, this seems like an instruction-related issue. The illegal instruction is being caught by QEMU because it can't emulate that particular instruction. The other possibility is a runtime error, but runtime usually refers to things like memory issues or program flow errors. Since the error is about an instruction not being recognized, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641861 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641861 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..801bdcef5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1641861 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU's ARM emulation related to the FPSCR register. They provided a test case where writing to FPSCR with certain bits set gives different results between real hardware and QEMU. + +The key point is about the FPSCR's RES0 bits. The ARM manual says those bits should be zero, and writing to them should be ignored. On real hardware, when you write to those bits, they should remain zero. But according to the test results, QEMU allows those bits to be set, which is incorrect. + +The problem here is in the emulation of the FPSCR register's behavior. When the code uses vmsr fpscr, r0 to write the value from r0 into FPSCR, QEMU isn't masking out the RES0 bits as the real hardware would. So when the program writes to those reserved bits, QEMU doesn't enforce them to be zero, leading to incorrect values being stored. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is with the execution of the vmsr instruction, which is an ARM instruction. The bug is that QEMU's handling of that specific instruction (vmsr) is incorrect regarding the FPSCR's RES0 bits. Therefore, this falls under the "instruction" category because it's a fault in how the instruction is emulated. It's not a syscall issue, as syscalls aren't involved here. It's also not a general runtime error but specifically about instruction execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..97e725df9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1642 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a QEMU crash when emulating an STXP instruction on a Windows host. The problem is specifically related to the TCG (Tiny Code Generator) for aarch64. The backtrace points to the helper function helper_atomic_cmpxchgo_le in atomic_common.c.inc. The issue was bisected to a specific commit, and the error seems to be with handling I128 arguments in that helper function. + +The STXP instruction is a Store-Release Exclusive Pair, part of ARM's atomic operations. The helper function in question is for a compare-and-exchange atomic operation. The crash happens when the helper is called, possibly due to incorrect handling of the Int128 values. Since the problem is tied to a specific instruction's emulation and the helper function for that instruction, this is an issue with the instruction emulation. The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since it's a problem during the execution of a specific instruction (STXP) in the TCG, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1659901 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1659901 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d28cdbeb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1659901 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is experiencing a SIGSEGV when running Java in a chroot environment using qemu-user-static. The problem occurs with a specific version of qemu (2.8) but not with an older version (2.7). The crash location is random each time. + +First, I need to recall what each category means. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The SIGSEGV is a segmentation fault, which typically happens when a program tries to access memory it shouldn't. Since this is happening when using QEMU to run an ARM binary on AMD64, it's likely related to how QEMU is emulating the ARM instructions. + +The user mentioned that the crash location isn't consistent, which might point to an issue in how QEMU is handling certain instructions. If there's a faulty instruction emulation in QEMU's user-mode static binary, that could cause unpredictable behavior like random crashes. + +The fact that the problem is specific to a version of qemu-user-static (2.8 vs 2.7) suggests a regression in that version. Since QEMU is responsible for translating or executing the ARM instructions on x86, a bug in that process would fall under the "instruction" category. + +Syscall errors would involve system calls not being handled properly, but the problem here seems more about the execution of the program's code rather than system calls. Runtime errors could be broader, but since it's a segmentation fault in the emulated environment, it's more likely an instruction issue. + +Therefore, the category is probably "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..eb4f7371c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1701821 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's look at this bug report. The user provided a bunch of test failures from QEMU, specifically related to various functions like sinh, tanh, logbf, etc. The main issue is that these tests are failing with unhandled traps (like 0x1a0 and 0x180), which suggests that the QEMU emulator isn't handling certain instructions correctly. + +Since the user mentions they can't test on actual SH4 hardware, they're relying on QEMU. The errors seem to be in the emulation of specific instructions, leading to the traps not being handled properly. The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Syscall would relate to system calls made by the program, but these errors are happening at the instruction level, like the CPU instructions not being emulated correctly. Runtime errors are more general, but the key here is that the QEMU emulator isn't processing certain SH4 instructions as expected. So the category should be "instruction" because the problem is with the instruction emulation in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1704638 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1704638 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b83f12770 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1704638 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user says that when they run a program under QEMU's user mode for MIPS and MIPS64, it hangs instead of crashing when a weak symbol is accessed. The issue is related to QEMU, so I need to see which category fits: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Looking at the problem: The program is supposed to crash because a weak symbol is NULL, but QEMU hangs. The stack trace from GDB shows that QEMU is stuck in gen_intermediate_code, which is part of the translation process for the target architecture. The function gen_intermediate_code is in translate.c for MIPS, which suggests it's about translating the guest's machine instructions into host instructions. + +The backtrace shows that the program is stuck in a mutex lock when generating intermediate code. The function tb_lock is part of the code generation process. This seems to be a problem during the execution of the guest code, specifically during the dynamic translation of instructions. + +Since the issue is happening during the translation or execution of the guest's instructions, it's likely related to how QEMU handles the specific instructions for MIPS when dealing with weak symbols. Weak symbols might involve certain instruction patterns that QEMU isn't handling correctly, leading to an infinite loop or deadlock in the translation process. + +Syscall errors usually involve system calls made by the emulated program, but here the problem occurs before that, during code execution. Runtime errors are a bit broad, but since this is about instruction translation, maybe it's more specific to instructions. However, the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Wait, the problem is that QEMU is hanging when processing the code that accesses the weak symbol. Since weak symbols might result in certain memory accesses or instructions that QEMU's translator isn't handling correctly, this could be an instruction-level issue. The gen_intermediate_code function is responsible for translating guest instructions, so a faulty translation could lead to an infinite loop. + +But maybe it's a runtime issue because it's during execution. However, the classification options don't have a 'translation' category. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is during the translation phase (gen_intermediate_code), which is part of handling the instructions, maybe it's an instruction-related bug. However, the user says that the program is supposed to crash but QEMU hangs. The root cause is QEMU's handling of the code execution, which might be a runtime issue. + +Alternatively, since the hang occurs during the generation of intermediate code for the target instructions, it's an issue with how QEMU processes the specific instructions for MIPS when a weak symbol is involved. Therefore, this would be an 'instruction' category bug because it's related to the correct handling of the guest instructions by QEMU's translator. + +But wait, the problem is that when the weak symbol (which is NULL) is accessed, the program should crash, but QEMU isn't handling the resulting fault properly. However, the backtrace shows that QEMU itself is hanging in its own code when trying to generate code. That suggests that the QEMU emulator is stuck in an infinite loop during translation, perhaps due to some invalid instruction pattern caused by the NULL pointer access. But why would accessing a NULL pointer cause QEMU to hang during translation? Maybe the program counter is at an invalid address, leading QEMU to try to translate code at an invalid location. + +In that case, the problem is that QEMU's code generation for MIPS isn't handling an invalid PC value correctly, leading to an infinite loop in gen_intermediate_code. That would be an instruction-related issue because it's about translating the wrong instructions. Therefore, the category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8d9360343 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1713066 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the handling of the aarch64 ldp instruction. The problem occurs when the ldp instruction tries to load from two different pages, and the second page is unmapped. When an exception is raised, QEMU doesn't restore the x0 register to its initial value, which causes issues when the OS retries the instruction. The user mentions that according to the ARMv8 manual, the address registers should be restored, but QEMU isn't doing that correctly. + +So, the core issue here is the incorrect handling of the ldp instruction, specifically how QEMU updates registers during exceptions. The problem isn't with a syscall, because it's about instruction execution. It's also not a general runtime error, but specifically about the instruction execution semantics. The category should be "instruction" since the bug is related to the correct simulation of the ldp instruction's behavior in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ef9482eb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1722 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is encountering an illegal instruction error when running a MIPS N32 binary with QEMU. The error occurs at the `exts` instruction in the dynamic linker (ld.so.1). + +First, I need to figure out why QEMU is hitting an illegal instruction here. The `exts` instruction is a MIPS instruction for sign-extending a value. But maybe QEMU's MIPS N32 emulator doesn't support that particular instruction yet. Or perhaps the binary was built with some specific CPU features that QEMU isn't emulating correctly. + +Looking at the disassembly, the instruction in question is `exts a3,v0,0x0,0x1e`. The user provided the toolchain and steps to reproduce. The problem seems to be in the emulation of the `exts` instruction by QEMU. Since the error is directly related to an unsupported or improperly handled instruction, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. + +The other categories like 'syscall' don't fit here because the issue isn't about system calls. It's about the execution of a specific machine instruction. 'Runtime' errors are more about runtime environments or libraries, but in this case, the problem is the instruction itself not being handled by QEMU. So the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1724485 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1724485 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c8dd99954 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1724485 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an invalid assertion in the arm_read_memory_func function. The assertion is checking if the endianness is little, but they're using armeb-linux, which is big-endian. The problem occurs when glibc's _dl_new_object calls strlen, which is in thumb2 mode. This leads to print_insn_arm calling arm_read_memory_func with length 2 and certain flags, causing the assert to fail. + +So the assertion is expecting little-endian, but in this case, it's big-endian (BFD_ENDIAN_BIG maybe?), hence the assert is false. The user says removing the assert allows execution to continue, but with the assert, QEMU stalls. + +The question is whether the assert should be removed or how to fix the stall. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The issue seems to be related to how the instruction is being read. The arm_read_memory_func is part of the code that reads memory for instruction decoding. The assertion is checking endianness, which is part of handling how instructions are read. Since the problem arises during instruction decoding (thumb2 mode, specific CPU flags), this seems to be an issue with the instruction handling. The assert is invalid because in some cases (like big-endian ARM with thumb2), the endianness might not be little, but the code expects it. Therefore, this is an instruction-related bug. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1725267 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1725267 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..55917acaa --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1725267 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a regression in QEMU when upgrading from version 2.7 to 2.8, and it's still present in 2.10.1. The problem occurs during GCC validation, specifically with test cases involving atomics. They provided an example executable, atomic-exchange-4.exe, which works in 2.7 but crashes in later versions with a signal 6 (Aborted), leading to a core dump. + +Looking at the details, the user ran the executable with qemu-armeb and noticed a difference in the instruction trace. The specific instruction mentioned is "addls pc, pc, r3, lsl #2" at address 0x40a17790. The next address differs between QEMU 2.7 and 2.10.1, which suggests that the emulator is executing different instructions or handling them differently after that point. + +The key part here is the instruction execution. The "addls" instruction is a conditional add (execute if Lower or Same, i.e., Z flag set). The fact that the next address differs implies that the emulator's handling of this instruction might be incorrect in the newer versions. Since the problem is related to how the instruction is executed (leading to an abort), this points towards an instruction-level issue. The user also mentioned that the problem is in the startup code, specifically in _dl_sysdep_start, which is part of the dynamic linker. However, the core issue seems to be the execution of the "addls" instruction, leading to incorrect program flow. + +The error isn't about a system call (which would fall under syscall), nor is it a general runtime error like memory management or threading issues. The problem is directly tied to how a specific ARM instruction is emulated. Therefore, the correct category here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d7921d37b --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1727737 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that a GCC sanitizer test stalls when run under QEMU starting from version 2.8, whereas it worked in 2.7. The key part here is that the problem began with QEMU 2.8 and onwards, and they provided a test case that works in 2.7 but not in later versions. + +The user mentioned using qemu-arm and provided a disassembly line where it stalls: 0x40b6eb44: e08f4004 add r4, pc, r4. The instruction here is an ARM ADD instruction. The question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Looking at the problem, the test stalls at a specific instruction. The fact that it works in 2.7 but not in 2.8 suggests that there might be a change in how that particular instruction is emulated in QEMU. The instruction in question is an ARM add instruction where the PC (program counter) is used as an operand. In ARM architecture, when using PC in data processing instructions, it refers to the address of the current instruction plus 8 (since ARM instructions are 32-bit and the PC is two instructions ahead). If QEMU's emulation of this instruction is incorrect, it could lead to the program stalling or incorrect execution. + +The stall is happening during the execution of a specific instruction, which points to an issue with the instruction emulation. Since the problem is tied to a specific version change (2.7 to 2.8), it's likely that a change in the ARM instruction handling was introduced. The user's use of "-d in_asm" shows that the problem is at the instruction level. Therefore, the classification should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1735384 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1735384 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5d17fc03e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1735384 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug where the OpenJDK JVM is causing a segmentation fault on qemu-sh4. They mention it's a regression, so recent changes caused it. The older version works, but a newer one doesn't. The error message says "qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped". + +First, I need to classify this into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The segmentation fault is a signal (SIGSEGV), which typically happens when a program tries to access invalid memory. The error is caught by QEMU, which is the emulator here. Since the problem occurs when running the JVM under QEMU, it's possible that QEMU's handling of certain instructions for the SH4 architecture might be at fault. + +The user says it's a regression, so a recent change in QEMU might have introduced a faulty instruction emulation. The fact that an older version of OpenJDK works suggests that maybe the newer JVM is using some instructions that QEMU now handles incorrectly. + +Syscall would involve system calls, but the error here is a segmentation fault, which isn't directly a syscall error. Runtime errors are general, but the mention of a faulty instruction in QEMU's handling points more towards the instruction category. + +Therefore, the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..250708950 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's aarch64 emulator. The problem is with the ssra instruction when using vector lengths of 1024-bit or higher. The code uses SVE (Scalable Vector Extension) instructions, specifically svsra, which is the saturating right shift and add. + +The steps to reproduce show that when running with a vector length of 64, both signed and unsigned results are correct (64). But when using 128-bit vectors, the signed result is 0 instead of 64, while the unsigned works. This suggests that the emulation of the ssra instruction for signed integers is incorrect for larger vector sizes. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is about the incorrect emulation of a specific CPU instruction (ssra) in QEMU, it's an instruction-related bug. Syscall would be about system calls, and runtime is for other runtime errors. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737444 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737444 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..98323dbb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1737444 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user mentioned that when running a test program on qemu-sh4, it crashes with an unhandled trap (0x180). The same code works on actual hardware (SH7785LCR), so the problem must be specific to QEMU. + +Looking at the code, it's using setcontext and makecontext, which are part of the ucontext API. These functions manipulate the context of a thread, which involves saving and restoring registers. The crash occurs when setcontext is called, which suggests that the context saved or restored by QEMU isn't correct. + +The error message mentions an unhandled trap. On SH architecture, trap 0x180 might correspond to a specific exception, perhaps related to an invalid instruction or an illegal operation. But since it's happening during context switching, it's possible that the context setup in QEMU doesn't properly handle the register state, especially thread-local storage (TLS) or some other aspects of the SH4 architecture. + +The key part here is that the code works on real hardware but not in QEMU. Since the code involves low-level context switching and thread-local storage, it's likely that QEMU's implementation of the SH4 target has an issue with how it handles the CPU state during context switches. This could be a missing or incorrect instruction emulation, especially if the context setup relies on certain CPU registers or flags that QEMU isn't correctly simulating. + +The user categorized it as part of QEMU, so the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is about the correct emulation of CPU instructions during context switching, it's probably an instruction issue. The crash is due to QEMU not handling the specific instructions involved in setting up the context correctly, leading to an unhandled trap. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b68d13a14 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1738434 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a problem with a 32-bit code that crashes on 64-bit Windows when using QEMU, but works on real hardware and VMware. The specific code involves a far call using a selector (like 0x33h) and a fword ptr [esp] call. The issue is that QEMU throws an access violation, whereas other environments don't. + +The user mentions that this is part of a technique called "Heaven's gate" which allows 32-bit code under WoW64 to switch to 64-bit mode using a far call with a specific selector. The problem seems to be that QEMU handles the CALL FWORD PTR [ESP] instruction incorrectly, leading to a crash. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is about the CPU instruction (CALL FWORD PTR) not being handled correctly by the emulator, it's likely an instruction issue. The error isn't during a syscall or runtime environment setup, but rather the execution of a specific instruction. The user is pointing out that QEMU's handling of this particular instruction is flawed compared to real hardware and another emulator (VMware). So, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ef7ee65fe --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1748296 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) where it throws an invalid opcode error when executing the x86 BMI shlx instruction. They mentioned that the problem is related to decoding the 2-byte VEX prefix for BMI instructions. The code in translate.c's gen_sse function goes to the do_0f_38_fx label, but since the 'b' variable doesn't match the expected values (like 0x1f7, etc.), it defaults to an invalid opcode. However, when using KVM, it works correctly. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The issue is clearly related to the execution of a specific x86 instruction (shlx), which is part of the BMI instruction set. The problem arises because TCG is not correctly decoding or handling this instruction. The user provided a repro and explained that the decoding logic in translate.c isn't handling the VEX prefix correctly for BMI instructions. Since this is about the correct handling of an instruction, it's likely an 'instruction' category bug. + +The other categories don't fit here. It's not a syscall, as there's no mention of system calls being involved. The problem isn't about runtime in the general sense, like memory management or threading, but specifically about the instruction decoding and execution. Therefore, the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..65bbeb75e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751422 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a bug in QEMU related to instruction translation errors on the i386 target. They mentioned specific versions like 2.11.1, 2.10.2, 2.7.1, and so on. The problematic instructions are LES and LDS. They have a patch but don't know how to apply it. The task is to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to recall what each category means. The instruction category is for bugs where a specific instruction is faulty. Syscall is about system call errors. Runtime covers other runtime issues not fitting the other two. + +The bug here is about the translation of certain x86 instructions (LES and LDS) in QEMU's i386 target. Since LES and LDS are x86 instructions, and the problem is during their translation (emulation), this seems directly related to instruction handling. The error isn't about a system call, which is a program's request to the OS. Also, runtime errors are more about execution issues like crashes or incorrect behavior during runtime, but here the problem is in the translation phase of specific instructions. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751494 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751494 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..066180b95 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1751494 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to building QEMU on Mac OS 10.6.8. The error is about an unknown instruction 'xgetbv' in the file tcg-target.inc.c. The code line uses inline assembly with xgetbv. They mentioned that another project had a similar issue and fixed it by replacing the instruction with its encoded bytes. The host info shows Mac OS 10.6.8 and GCC 5.2.0. Also, they note that using clang on Mac OS 10.12 didn't have the problem. The commit that introduced the issue was adding vector operations. + +So, the problem is that the compiler (GCC 5.2.0) doesn't recognize the xgetbv instruction. The user is asking to classify this bug report into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The error occurs during compilation, not runtime. The error message is about an unknown instruction, which is a problem with the instruction itself. The fix involved replacing the instruction with its byte encoding because the assembler didn't recognize the mnemonic. This suggests that the instruction isn't supported by the assembler on that specific setup. Since the category 'instruction' refers to a faulty instruction in the bug report, this fits. It's not a syscall error, and it's not a runtime error. The issue is with the instruction being used in the inline assembly not being recognized by the compiler/assembler on that particular system. So the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1756927 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1756927 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2d92559dd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1756927 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU related to ARMv7 LPAE and the IFSR register not setting the LPAE bit correctly when a BKPT instruction causes a prefetch abort. The problem is that the output shows 'short-descriptor' instead of 'long-descriptor' which is expected. + +First, I need to understand what's going on here. The BKPT instruction triggers an exception. The IFSR (Instruction Fault Status Register) should indicate whether the LPAE (Large Physical Address Extension) bit is set. But in this case, when using LPAE, the bit [9] isn't being set, leading to a wrong descriptor type being reported. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user is saying this is a QEMU bug. The instruction category is for when a specific instruction is faulty. Since BKPT is an ARM instruction, maybe the problem is how QEMU emulates that instruction. However, the issue seems to be more about the exception handling and the state of the IFSR when the exception is raised. + +Wait, the problem is that when the BKPT instruction causes a prefetch abort, the IFSR isn't set correctly. So, the question is whether the QEMU's handling of the BKPT instruction is incorrect, leading to the wrong IFSR value. Since BKPT is an instruction that triggers an exception, and the exception handling (specifically setting the IFSR flags) isn't done properly in QEMU, this could be an instruction-related issue. But maybe it's more about the exception handling during the execution of the instruction. + +Alternatively, if the problem is that QEMU's runtime handling of the exception (like setting the correct bits in the IFSR) is wrong, then it's a runtime error. But the user is pointing to the BKPT instruction as the trigger. However, the actual bug is in the IFSR not being set correctly during the exception. The BKPT instruction itself might be emulated correctly, but when the exception occurs, the state isn't set properly. + +So, the issue is in how QEMU handles the exception caused by BKPT, specifically setting the IFSR's LPAE bit. Since this is part of the instruction's execution and exception handling, maybe it's classified under 'instruction'. But 'instruction' category is for faulty instructions. Alternatively, if the error is in the handling of the system call, but that's not the case here. Since it's during the execution of the instruction and exception handling, perhaps 'instruction' is the right category. Or maybe 'runtime' because it's about how the exception is processed during runtime. + +Wait, the 'runtime' category is for other errors happening during runtime. The 'instruction' category is for when the instruction itself is faulty. Since the problem is that the IFSR isn't set correctly when the BKPT instruction triggers a prefetch abort, it's more about how QEMU handles the instruction's exception during execution. So maybe 'instruction' is the right category here. But I'm a bit unsure. Another angle: the BKPT instruction is correctly emulated, but the exception handling (part of the instruction's execution) is not setting the IFSR correctly. Therefore, the error is in the instruction's emulation, making it an 'instruction' bug. + +But maybe the problem is not the instruction itself, but the exception handling mechanism. However, in QEMU's context, how the instruction is emulated and how exceptions are raised during its execution would fall under the instruction's handling. Therefore, the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761401 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761401 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c1f3ad4e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761401 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU where a specific test involving ARM/Neon's vcvt instruction is failing. The problem is that converting a float32 value of 125.9 to a uint32 is resulting in 126 instead of the expected 125. They mention it works on real hardware and QEMU 2.11.0, so it's a regression. + +First, I need to determine the category: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is related to the vcvt instruction's behavior in QEMU. The user is pointing out that the conversion is giving the wrong result, which suggests that the emulation of the vcvt instruction in QEMU might be incorrect. Since the problem is with the execution of a specific instruction and its result, the category should be "instruction". The issue is not about system calls or runtime environment setup but rather the correct implementation of the instruction in the emulator. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761535 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761535 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ded390581 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1761535 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure this out. The user is using qemu-aarch64-static to run an ARM64 Docker image on an x86 machine. They mentioned that with a newer version of QEMU (2.11.91), running the arm64v8/openjdk image causes a segmentation fault and a core dump when they run `javac`. However, older versions like 2.5.0 and 2.11.1 don't have this issue. The problem is classified as part of QEMU, and I need to determine if it's an instruction, syscall, or runtime error. + +First, the error message says "qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped." Signal 11 is a segmentation fault, which usually means the program tried to access an invalid memory location. The key here is that this happens with a specific version of QEMU. Since the same setup works with older QEMU versions, it's likely a regression in the newer version. + +Now, the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Instruction-related bugs would involve incorrect emulation of CPU instructions. Syscall errors relate to system calls made by the guest OS. Runtime errors are other issues that occur during execution but not directly related to instructions or syscalls. + +In this case, the segmentation fault occurs during the execution of the `javac` command. The problem is specific to a QEMU version, and the core dump suggests that the QEMU process itself is crashing. This might be due to incorrect handling of certain instructions by the newer QEMU version when emulating ARM64. Since the user is running a Java compiler, which is a complex application, it's possible that it's executing some instructions that the newer QEMU version isn't handling correctly, leading to a segfault. + +Therefore, this seems like an issue with how QEMU is emulating the ARM64 instructions, which would fall under the "instruction" category. However, another angle is that the crash is happening at runtime due to some internal QEMU error, which could be a runtime issue. But since the problem is likely due to incorrect instruction emulation causing the segfault, instruction might be the right category. + +Wait, but the user says it's part of QEMU. The categories are for classifying the bug report. If the bug is due to a faulty instruction emulation (like QEMU not handling a specific ARM instruction correctly), then it's an "instruction" bug. If it's a problem with how QEMU handles system calls, then it's "syscall". Otherwise, it's "runtime". + +The error here is a segmentation fault in QEMU itself, which suggests that QEMU is crashing when processing some instruction from the guest. That would point towards an instruction-related issue. For example, maybe a particular ARM instruction generated by the Java toolchain is causing QEMU to segfault because of a bug in the instruction emulator. Since the problem doesn't occur in older versions, it's a regression in how instructions are handled. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1763 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1763 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7532965bf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1763 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having an issue with ldd failing when using qemu-aarch64. The problem occurs when running a Docker container with an ARM64 image on an AMD64 host. The error message mentions that the exit code is 139, which typically indicates a segmentation fault. + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem seems to be related to QEMU's user-mode emulation. The ldd command is trying to analyze the binary, but QEMU might not be handling certain instructions correctly. Since exit code 139 is a segfault, it suggests that the program is crashing due to an invalid memory access. This could be due to a faulty instruction emulation. + +Looking at the original issue linked (though I can't access it), the user mentions that it's a QEMU problem. If QEMU is not correctly translating or emulating a specific instruction from the ARM64 binary, that would fall under an "instruction" error. + +Alternatively, if it were a syscall issue, we might see errors related to system calls not being supported or incorrectly handled. But in this case, the problem is during the execution of the binary, leading to a crash, which points more towards instruction emulation. + +Runtime errors are more about dynamic linking or library issues, but here the issue is with QEMU's emulation process itself. So the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1768246 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1768246 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dc820d141 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1768246 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The error is an assertion failure in cpu-exec.c at line 648, specifically the assertion `use_icount'. The context is that OpenJDK stopped working on qemu-sh4 after a certain fix. The crash happens when running java --version, leading to a core dump. + +First, I need to classify this into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The assertion failure in cpu_loop_exec_tb suggests that the problem is during the execution of a TB (Translation Block), which is part of QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) accelerator. The use_icount variable likely relates to instruction counting, which is used for precise timing in some emulated environments. + +Since the error is an assertion failure in the CPU execution loop, it's probably related to how instructions are being processed or counted. The problem isn't directly about a system call, as that would involve interaction with the host OS's kernel. It's also not a general runtime error, but more specifically about the execution of instructions within QEMU's emulator. + +The previous fix (#1735384) might have altered how instruction counting is handled, leading to this assertion failure when running Java, which may rely on precise timing or specific instruction behaviors. Therefore, this seems to be an issue with the execution of instructions in QEMU's TCG, making it an "instruction" category bug. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6c78059b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1771 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's SPARC emulator not handling the CASA instruction, even though the LEON3 CPU supports it. The problem occurs when running a program that uses CASA, like "ls" with a recent glibc. The error is an illegal instruction. + +Looking at the patch provided, it modifies the translation code for SPARC instructions. The CASA instruction is commented out under certain conditions. The user mentions that the patch removes the missing handling but requires ASI load/store which isn't implemented for SPARC32 user-space. + +So, the core issue here is that QEMU doesn't properly emulate the CASA instruction. The bug is specifically about the instruction handling. The problem arises when the instruction is executed, leading to an illegal instruction exception. Since the bug is related to the correct execution of a specific CPU instruction, this falls under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of system calls or runtime errors beyond the instruction handling. Therefore, the correct classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1779 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1779 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d8bb72d4c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1779 @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to PowerPC AltiVec and Rust code. The problem is about subnormal values not being flushed to zero as specified. The code uses AltiVec intrinsics, and the issue is that the source vectors aren't flushed, only the results. The assertions fail because of this. + +The question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The user says it's part of QEMU. + +First, I need to figure out what's causing the issue. The problem is with how AltiVec handles subnormal numbers. The Rust code is using vec_splats and vec_add, which are intrinsics. The bug is that the source vectors (the inputs) aren't being flushed to zero in NJ mode. According to the AltiVec spec, both source and result vectors should be flushed, but in reality, only the result is. + +So when the code runs, adding a very small subnormal value (-1.08e-38) and 0.0, if the source is flushed, the result would be 0. But since it's not, the result is -0.0, leading to the assertion failure. + +Now, why is this happening? If the code is compiled with Rust's stdsimd and powerpc_target_feature, the issue could be in how the intrinsics are implemented in the compiler (Rust) or in the QEMU emulator when executing the PowerPC instructions. + +But the user says it's part of QEMU. So maybe QEMU's emulation of the AltiVec instructions isn't correctly handling the flushing of subnormal source vectors. If the real hardware flushes the source vectors, but QEMU doesn't, then when the code runs under QEMU (like in a simulation or virtual machine), it would fail. + +The classification options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +If the problem is that QEMU's implementation of a specific instruction (like vec_splats or vec_add) isn't following the AltiVec spec regarding flushing subnormals, then this would be an instruction-level error. Because it's about how a particular instruction is emulated. + +Syscall would be if the issue involved system calls, which it doesn't here. Runtime might refer to the Rust runtime or something else, but the problem seems to be in the execution of the machine instructions, which is QEMU's job. + +Therefore, since the issue is in how QEMU emulates the AltiVec instructions, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..34ecfdd86 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1780 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The problem is about the xscmpudp instruction being mishandled. The steps to reproduce involve compiling a Rust program with VSX enabled and then running it, leading to failed assertions. When VSX is disabled, it uses fcmpu instead, which works properly. The example code uses f64::NAN and clamp, expecting the result to be NaN. + +First, I need to categorize this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The description mentions that the xscmpudp instruction is mishandled. The key here is that the issue is with the handling of a specific CPU instruction. QEMU emulates hardware, including CPU instructions. If an instruction isn't emulated correctly, that would fall under the 'instruction' category. + +The problem isn't related to a system call (syscall), since it's about instruction execution. It's not a runtime error in the general sense either, like memory management or something else. The error is specifically in how QEMU handles the xscmpudp instruction. Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..97cf91e36 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1781281 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug report falls into. The user is using qemu-ppc64le version 2.12.0 on an x86_64 Arch Linux host. They're working on VSX support in libVPX and encountered an "uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction)" when changing vec_sub to vec_subs in their code. The backtrace points to a SIGILL in QEMU's cpu_loop, specifically at line 723 of loopfilter_vsx.c. + +First, the error is an Illegal Instruction (SIGILL), which usually means the CPU tried to execute an instruction it doesn't recognize. Since they're using QEMU to emulate a PowerPC 64-bit little-endian environment, the problem might be related to how QEMU handles certain instructions. + +The user mentions that the issue doesn't occur on a real POWER9 machine. That suggests that the code itself is correct for the actual hardware, but QEMU might not be properly emulating a specific instruction. The change from vec_sub to vec_subs likely introduces an instruction that QEMU's emulator either doesn't recognize or isn't handling correctly. + +Since the error is an illegal instruction within QEMU's process, and given that QEMU is responsible for translating or emulating the guest instructions, this seems like an issue with QEMU's instruction handling. The categories given are 'instruction', 'syscall', or 'runtime'. The 'instruction' category is for faulty instructions in the bug report, which fits here because the problem arises from QEMU not handling a specific instruction (vec_subs) correctly. The 'syscall' category is for system call errors, which doesn't apply here. 'Runtime' is for other runtime errors, but since the core issue is about the instruction emulation, 'instruction' makes sense. + +So, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1785734 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1785734 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..184fcbe82 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1785734 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's tackle this bug report classification. The user provided a scenario involving QEMU's TCG mode and a partial write issue with the movdqu instruction at a page boundary. + +First, I need to understand what's happening here. The bug seems to occur when a 16-byte write (movdqu) crosses a page boundary. When a page fault happens, the partial write in the first page is executed, but the second page's write causes a fault. The example shows different outputs between running natively and under QEMU, indicating a discrepancy in how the partial write is handled. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem is related to the execution of the movdqu instruction, specifically how TCG handles partial writes when a page fault occurs. Since movdqu is an x86 instruction, and the issue is about how QEMU's TCG mode emulates this instruction's behavior regarding page boundaries and partial writes, this seems to be an instruction-related bug. + +Syscall would involve system calls, which aren't directly mentioned here. Runtime errors are more general, but the issue is specifically tied to the instruction's emulation. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2fb517aff --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1790 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the STGP instruction in AARCH64 not writing the second register's value to memory when using Clang with memtag sanitization. They mentioned that the problem is in the trans_STGP() function in QEMU's code. The proposed fix involves calling finalize_memop_pair(), which is done in trans_STP() but not in trans_STGP(). + +The key here is that the bug is related to the translation or handling of the STGP instruction in QEMU. Since STGP is an instruction, and the issue arises from how QEMU's code translates or executes this instruction, the category should be "instruction". The problem isn't about a syscall or runtime error but specifically about the instruction's implementation in the emulator. + +So, the correct category is instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..84afcf524 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793119 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with floating-point emulation on AArch64 in QEMU. Specifically, when the FPCR is set to zero (which enables IEEE-754 compliant mode), the results of a floating-point division don't match between real hardware (like a Raspberry Pi 3) and QEMU. The example shows that on real hardware, when FPCR is zero, the result 'r' equals 'q', but in QEMU, 'r' is different. The problem seems to be with the 'fdiv' instruction's emulation in QEMU. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is related to how a specific instruction (fdiv) is emulated incorrectly, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall issue because it's about the execution of a machine instruction, not a system call. It's also not a runtime error in the general sense, but specifically an instruction emulation error. So the correct classification should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b2ad439a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1793608 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's tackle this bug report classification. The user is saying that QEMU 3.0.0 doesn't support the lxvwsx instruction for POWER9, leading to an illegal instruction error. They mention that when they work around it by using two separate instructions, everything works. + +First, I need to figure out which category this falls into: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem is specifically about an instruction not being supported. The lxvwsx is a PowerPC vector instruction. QEMU's emulator for the CPU should handle these instructions. Since the issue is that the instruction isn't implemented, causing a crash, that's an instruction-level problem. The user even checked with objdump and saw the instruction is present in the binary. So QEMU's emulation of that particular instruction is missing. + +Syscall would be if there was an issue with system calls, like incorrect handling of open(), read(), etc. Runtime errors could be things like memory management issues, threading problems, etc., but here it's a specific instruction not being emulated. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1796520 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1796520 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9d6ffd402 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1796520 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that autogen crashes on qemu-sh4-user after a specific commit. The error message includes an "Unhandled trap: 0x180" which probably indicates some kind of exception or invalid instruction. The commit in question adds checks for FPSCR.PR == 0 for frchg and fschg instructions. The problem is fixed by reverting that commit. + +So, the issue seems to be related to the SH4 target in QEMU. The commit introduced checks for the FPSCR.PR bit. If those instructions (frchg and fschg) are being executed when PR is not zero, QEMU is now raising an undefined operation exception. But since the user is seeing a crash when running autogen, maybe the code being emulated is using those instructions without ensuring PR is zero. Before the commit, QEMU didn't check, so it might have silently allowed it, but after the commit, it's causing an exception that's not properly handled, leading to the crash. + +Since the problem is related to the execution of specific instructions (frchg/fschg) and their conditions (PR bit), this would fall under the "instruction" category. The error arises from how QEMU handles these instructions, not from a syscall or runtime error like memory issues. The crash is due to an unhandled trap caused by the instruction execution, so the category is instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1805 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1805 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..da234bb79 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1805 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a CI job in QEMU called build-user-hexagon that's not actually testing the Hexagon architecture. The problem seems to be with the compiler that's being used. From the logs, the C compiler is reported as 'cc' which is GCC 10.2.1, but they expected a Hexagon cross-compiler. + +Looking into the Dockerfile for the hexagon-cross container, they installed a toolchain under /opt and added it to the PATH. However, the toolchain only has 'clang' and not 'cc'. The issue here is that when the configure script looks for 'cc', it's finding the native x86_64 GCC instead of the cross-compiler. The user tried setting CC=clang but Meson then assumes it's a native compiler, leading to an error because it can't run the compiled binaries. + +The root cause seems to be that the Hexagon container isn't set up correctly compared to other cross-compiler containers. The toolchain binaries aren't named with the target triplet (like hexagon-unknown-linux-musl-clang), which is necessary for cross-compilation. Previously, this was done, but a commit switched to a pre-built toolchain without maintaining that naming. Also, the environment variable QEMU_CONFIGURE_OPTS isn't set with the cross-prefix, which is needed to tell the build system to use the cross-compiler. + +The user is pointing out that the CI job isn't actually building for Hexagon because the setup is incorrect. The main problem is the misconfiguration in the toolchain setup within the Docker container. Since this is about the setup of the build environment and the correct tools being used during the configuration and build process, it's not an error during runtime or a syscall issue. It's about the instructions or setup steps that are incorrect in the CI job. + +So the category here should be 'instruction' because the bug report is about a faulty instruction in setting up the cross-compiler environment for Hexagon in the CI job. The problem arises from how the toolchain is installed and referenced in the Dockerfile, leading to the wrong compiler being used during the build process. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a336cf0af --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1806243 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU where a conditional branch in ARM Thumb-2 isn't working correctly during debugging. The problem occurs when the branch isn't taken as expected, leading to the program counter not being popped, causing the program to hang. The user mentions that the code works normally but hangs when debugging. They also reference a similar bug report on Launchpad which seems to be about the same symptoms. + +The code example given uses an IT (If-Then) block with a conditional branch (blt.w). The issue arises when the condition is not met (i.e., when r0 equals r1), and the debugger gets stuck. The user tried reproducing it with inline assembly but had different results, possibly due to execution in RAM vs. flash. They're using QEMU 3.0.0 and GDB 8.2. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is about the execution of a specific instruction (the conditional branch in Thumb-2) and the QEMU's handling of it, especially in the context of the IT instruction which affects subsequent conditional execution, this seems to be an instruction-related bug. The fact that the bug is related to how the conditional branch is processed, especially in the debugger, points towards an incorrect implementation or handling of the instruction in QEMU. The referenced Launchpad bug also mentions ARM conditional execution issues, which supports the instruction category. There's no mention of syscalls or runtime errors like memory management issues, so it's not syscall or runtime. So the category should be instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1807 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1807 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3074ad052 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1807 @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having a problem with a SPARC64 binary compiled with g++ on Ubuntu 23.04, and when they run it with qemu-sparc64-static, it segfaults. The issue happens when using printf or puts. + +First, the user tried to compile a simple C program that uses puts. They compiled it statically with sparc64-linux-gnu-g++. Then they tried to run it with qemu-sparc64-static, but got a segmentation fault. When trying other QEMU SPARC variants like sparc or sparc32plus, they get invalid ELF errors, which makes sense because the binary is 64-bit. + +The problem is specific to qemu-sparc64. The question is to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +So, a segmentation fault during execution suggests something's wrong with the code execution. If the instruction category is for faulty instructions, maybe there's an invalid instruction being executed. But maybe it's a runtime issue if it's related to how the program is run, like library issues or dynamic linking. However, the user compiled statically, so maybe that's not it. But since the problem happens when using printf or puts, which are standard library functions, maybe there's an issue with how QEMU handles the system calls or the environment setup for SPARC64. + +But wait, the problem occurs when those functions are called. So, perhaps QEMU is not correctly emulating the necessary system calls or the environment for those functions to work. Alternatively, maybe there's a problem with the static linking. However, the user is using QEMU's static version. + +Alternatively, maybe there's a bug in how QEMU is executing the SPARC64 instructions for those specific functions. For example, if the generated code for puts or printf on SPARC64 has an instruction that QEMU doesn't handle correctly, leading to a segfault. That would fall under the instruction category. + +But if it's a runtime issue, like missing libraries or environment setup (like the C library not being properly initialized), that would be runtime. However, since the program is statically linked, it shouldn't depend on shared libraries. But static linking on SPARC64 might have its own issues. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that QEMU's SPARC64 emulator isn't correctly handling certain aspects of the runtime environment, like the stack setup, or the calling conventions, leading to a segfault when the program tries to call those functions. That could be a runtime issue. + +But the question is about categorizing the bug. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. If the problem is with an incorrect instruction being executed (like QEMU doesn't support a particular instruction used by the compiled code), then it's an instruction error. If it's a syscall that's not handled properly, then syscall. Otherwise, runtime. + +The user's test case uses puts, which is a standard library function that eventually makes a system call (like write). However, the segfault happens when trying to use that function. If QEMU's SPARC64 isn't handling the system call correctly, that would be a syscall category issue. But if the problem is that the code generated for SPARC64 includes an instruction that QEMU doesn't emulate correctly, causing a segfault, then it's an instruction category issue. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that the static binary is missing some runtime components that QEMU isn't providing. But since it's statically linked, that's less likely. + +Another angle: the user is using QEMU version 7.2.0. Maybe there's a known issue with SPARC64 emulation in that version. Checking QEMU's changelog or bug reports might help, but since I can't do that, I have to reason based on the given info. + +The key is that the segmentation fault occurs during execution of the program when it tries to call puts. If the problem is that the generated code for SPARC64 uses an instruction that QEMU doesn't handle, then it's instruction. If it's a system call that's not properly emulated, then syscall. If it's something else during runtime like memory management, then runtime. + +Given that the same code might work on a real SPARC64 system, but fails under QEMU, it's likely that QEMU is not correctly emulating some aspect of the hardware or system calls needed for the standard library functions to work. However, without more details, it's tricky. + +But the user says it segfaults when trying to use printf or puts. These functions involve system calls (like write) and possibly some internal C library handling. If the segmentation fault is due to an incorrect system call handler, that would be syscall. But if it's because the code path in the C library for SPARC64 is using an instruction that QEMU doesn't handle, then instruction. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that the static binary is built with a certain C library (like glibc) that expects certain runtime support which QEMU isn't providing, leading to a segfault. That would be a runtime issue. + +But considering that the user is using qemu-sparc64-static, which should handle the execution, and the problem is specific to when the program calls standard I/O functions, which involve system calls, perhaps the system call handling is incorrect. For example, maybe the arguments are not being passed correctly for the write system call, leading to a crash. + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is in the code generation for SPARC64. For example, if the compiled code uses a specific SPARC64 instruction that QEMU doesn't emulate properly, causing a segfault when that instruction is executed. That would be an instruction error. + +Given that the user is using a recent version of QEMU (7.2.0) and the compiler (12.2.0), perhaps there's a compatibility issue. But without more info, I need to make a judgment. + +Since the problem occurs when executing specific functions (printf/puts), which involve system calls, but the error is a segmentation fault, it's possible that the system call emulation is incorrect. However, another possibility is that the code generated by the compiler for SPARC64 includes instructions that QEMU doesn't handle correctly. + +Given the options, and considering that the segmentation fault could be due to an invalid instruction being executed (like an unimplemented one), the category would be "instruction". However, if the problem is with the system call handling, it's "syscall". + +Alternatively, maybe the problem is that the static binary is built with a version of glibc that requires certain runtime features not present in the QEMU environment, leading to a runtime error. But since the binary is static, it should include all necessary libraries. However, static linking on SPARC64 might have issues, but that's more of a compiler issue, not QEMU's. + +Given the categories, and the fact that the error is a segfault during execution of the program's code (specifically when using standard functions), it's likely an instruction-related issue if the problem is with the execution of specific machine instructions. Otherwise, if it's about system call handling, then syscall. Since the user's problem is with functions that use system calls, but the error is a segfault, it's possible that the system call emulation is incorrect, leading to the segfault. For example, if the system call handler is not properly setting up the context, causing the program to crash. + +But I'm not entirely sure. However, given that the problem is with the execution of the code (the instructions) leading to a segfault, I think the correct category is instruction. But I'm not 100% certain. Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime error if the environment setup is wrong. But the runtime category is for other runtime errors not covered by syscall or instruction. The instruction category is for faulty instructions. + +Another thought: if the compiled code for SPARC64 is correct, but QEMU is not handling the instructions correctly, leading to a segfault, then it's an instruction error. If the compiled code is incorrect (unlikely, as it's a simple puts), then it's not QEMU's fault. But the problem is in QEMU. + +Therefore, the most likely category is instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1812 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1812 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..73a4133d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1812 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that older programs running under qemu-aarch64 are causing segmentation faults. They provided steps to reproduce using a Debian Jessie or Ubuntu Xenial chroot. The problem started after a specific commit in QEMU. The key point here is that reverting that commit fixes the issue. + +The user mentions that the issue is related to old userspace not being prepared for recent CPU features. But they also note that it's strange. The segfaults happen for some programs like ls or bash but not others like dash. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Instruction errors usually involve incorrect or unsupported CPU instructions. If QEMU's emulator is generating incorrect instructions for older programs that don't expect new CPU features, that could fit. For example, if the newer QEMU version is using an instruction that older user-space programs aren't compatible with, leading to a segfault. + +Syscall errors would relate to system calls being handled incorrectly. However, the user didn't mention anything about syscalls specifically. The problem seems to be more about how the CPU state or instructions are being emulated. + +Runtime errors are other issues that occur during execution, not necessarily related to instructions or syscalls. But given that the problem is tied to a specific commit in QEMU's code that affects CPU emulation, it's likely related to instruction handling. The user suspects CPU features, so it's probably an instruction-related issue where QEMU is using a new instruction that older programs can't handle. + +Since reverting the commit fixes it, and the commit is in QEMU's aarch64 emulation, it's likely that the commit introduced a new instruction or changed how instructions are handled, causing older programs to crash. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c3a89f853 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1815024 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a SIGILL error when the "stck" instruction is executed under qemu-s390x in user mode. The same instruction works in system mode. The problem is reproducible with both Debian's version and the latest upstream master. The issue causes a crash in ssh-keygen, which uses "stck" for randomness. The minimal example provided compiles and crashes in user mode but works in system mode. The log shows the instruction is being traced. + +So, the key points here are that the bug is related to a specific instruction ("stck") not being handled correctly in user mode. The instruction works in system mode, so maybe user mode lacks the emulation for this instruction. Since "stck" is a S/390x instruction equivalent to x86's rdtsc, it's possible that QEMU's user mode doesn't properly emulate this instruction, leading to an illegal instruction signal. The fact that it's handled in system mode suggests that the system mode has the necessary emulation, but user mode doesn't. Therefore, this is an instruction-related bug in QEMU's user mode emulation. The category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9bbfe25ab --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1818075 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having an issue with QEMU where their code built with AVX2 instructions is hanging when run under qemu-user with the -cpu Skylake-Client option. The warnings mention that TCG doesn't support several features, including AVX. The stack trace shows it's getting stuck in some floating-point operations. + +First, I need to figure out the category. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem seems to be related to AVX instructions not being properly emulated by TCG. The error messages from QEMU indicate that TCG lacks support for those CPU features. The user's code is hitting an AVX instruction (vsubsd) which QEMU's TCG can't handle, leading to a hang. + +Since the issue is with the execution of a specific instruction (AVX) that isn't supported in TCG, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't with a system call or general runtime issues but specifically with the lack of support for certain CPU instructions in the emulator. The stack trace also points to a failure in handling the floating-point operation, reinforcing that it's an instruction-level problem. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1819 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1819 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..66a0c28f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1819 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is getting a segmentation fault when running 'rpm -qa' on a CentOS 7 Docker container that's built for ARMv7. They pulled the image with a specific SHA256 hash, and when they run it on an amd64 host, they get the error. + +So, the problem here is that the Docker image is for a different architecture (ARM) than the host (AMD64). The user didn't specify a platform when running the container, so Docker is trying to run the ARM image on an AMD64 host. But how does that lead to a segmentation fault? + +QEMU is used for cross-architecture emulation in Docker. If the host is AMD64 and the image is ARM, Docker should use QEMU to emulate the ARM environment. However, there might be issues with QEMU's ability to properly emulate certain instructions or system calls that the ARM binary expects. + +The segmentation fault occurs when the program tries to access a memory location that it shouldn't. In this case, the 'rpm -qa' command is likely an ARM binary. When executed under QEMU emulation, there could be a problem with how the emulation handles the instructions, leading to a segfault. + +Since the problem is related to the execution of the ARM binary on a different architecture via QEMU, and the segfault is due to the emulation not correctly handling the instructions, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. The error stems from the emulation of specific instructions that the RPM package manager is trying to execute, which QEMU might not be handling correctly for ARM on AMD64. + +Alternatively, could it be a syscall issue? Well, syscalls would be if the program is trying to make a system call that the host kernel doesn't support. But since the host is using QEMU to emulate the ARM environment, the syscalls would be translated. However, if the segmentation fault is due to the actual execution of the ARM binary's instructions (like a specific ARM instruction that QEMU can't emulate properly), then it's an instruction problem. + +Given that QEMU's emulation of certain instructions can lead to such errors, especially in complex binaries like rpm, the most likely category here is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ff8143c19 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1820686 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU 3.1 incorrectly decoding the 'c.unimp' instruction as 'c.addi4spn fp, 0' under certain conditions. The issue seems to be related to how the opcode is handled when dealing with compressed instructions. The problem arises because the opcode is loaded as a 32-bit value, but for compressed instructions, only the lower 16 bits are valid. This leads to incorrect decoding when the following bytes are non-zero. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about the decoding of an instruction, specifically a compressed instruction in RISC-V. The error is in how the instruction is decoded, which falls under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of a system call here, and while it's a runtime error in the sense that it happens during execution, the primary classification here is about the instruction decoding. So the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8142eb651 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821430 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that qemu-user-arm version 4.0.0-rc0 is crashing with a SIGILL on certain instructions. They provided two examples where the illegal instruction is related to VFP (like vseleq.f64 and vrintm.f64). The same binaries work with version 3.1.0, so this is a regression. + +The key here is that the problem is happening because QEMU is encountering an illegal instruction when running the ARM binary. The user is using QEMU for cross-compilation, specifically with a wrapper. The error messages from GDB show that the PC (program counter) is pointing to these VFP instructions, which QEMU might not be emulating correctly in the newer version. + +Since the issue is directly related to the execution of specific ARM instructions (VFP instructions in this case) and QEMU's handling of them, this falls under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't with a system call (syscall) or some other runtime error like memory issues, but specifically with how QEMU emulates certain instructions. The fact that it's a regression suggests that there's a bug in the instruction emulation code in QEMU 4.0.0-rc0 compared to the previous version. + +Therefore, the correct category for this bug report is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c69acceb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821444 @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is reporting that when they run a program under qemu-ppc, there's a discrepancy in the output of a float32 conversion compared to running it natively on a PPC64 system. The example code takes a uint32_t value, reinterprets it as a float, and prints it. The native output is 1.401298e-45, but under QEMU, it's 2.802597e-45, which is exactly double. + +First, I need to understand why this discrepancy occurs. The key here is how the float is being interpreted. The value 0x1 as a 32-bit float is a very small number. The correct value for 0x31 in hex (which is 1 in decimal) as a float would depend on the endianness and the actual bit pattern. Wait, wait, the code is taking the uint32_t i = 1, which is 0x00000001 in 32 bits. When reinterpreted as a float, that bit pattern represents a float. Let's think about the IEEE 754 format. + +For a 32-bit float, the first bit is the sign bit (0 here), the next 8 bits are the exponent, and the remaining 23 are the mantissa. The value 0x00000001 in hex is 0 00000000 00000000000000000000001. The exponent is all zeros, and the mantissa has a single 1 bit. That's a subnormal number. The value would be 1 * 2^(-126) multiplied by 2^(-23) (since the mantissa is 1 * 2^-23), but wait, maybe I'm getting that wrong. Let me calculate. The actual value is (0 + 1 * 2^-23) * 2^(-126 + 127 - 127?), no, wait. For subnormal numbers, the exponent is -126 (since the exponent bias is 127, and all exponent bits are zero, so actual exponent is -126). The mantissa is 0.mantissa_bits, so here it's 1/(2^23). So the value is 1/(2^23) * 2^-126 = 1/(2^149). Let me compute that. 2^10 is 1024, 2^20 is ~1e6, 2^30 ~1e9, so 2^149 is 2^(140 + 9) = (2^10)^14 * 512. Let's approximate 2^149 ≈ 1.7e44. So 1/2^149 ≈ 5.7e-45. Wait, but the user's outputs are around 1.4e-45 and 2.8e-45. Hmm. Maybe my calculation is off. Alternatively, perhaps there's an endianness issue. + +Wait, the code is taking a uint32_t (which is in host endianness) and reinterpreting it as a float. But on a big-endian system (like PPC), the byte order might differ. However, the user is using qemu-ppc, which emulates a PowerPC (big-endian) environment. But when they run the code natively on a PPC64 system (which is big-endian), the output is 1.4e-45. Under QEMU, the output is double that. + +Wait, the two outputs differ by a factor of two. 1.4e-45 multiplied by two is 2.8e-45. So what could cause that? Let me think about the bit pattern. If the uint32_t is 1, stored as 0x00000001 in memory. On a big-endian system, when you cast that to a float, the bytes are 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01. But on a little-endian system, the same uint32_t would be stored as 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00, which would be a different float value. However, the user is using qemu-ppc, which should emulate big-endian behavior. But maybe there's a mistake in how QEMU handles the float conversion, perhaps due to incorrect endianness handling when translating the integer to float? Or maybe the float is being reinterpreted with the wrong endianness. + +Alternatively, perhaps the problem is that the code is using a volatile uint32_t and then reinterpreting it as a float. The cast via (float*)&i could be causing undefined behavior, but the user is using -fno-strict-aliasing, which should allow that. But the real issue is how the bits are interpreted. If QEMU's translation of the float is incorrect, perhaps because the emulator's FPU is not handling the conversion correctly. For example, maybe the emulator is using the host's FPU (which is likely x86, which is little-endian) and mishandling the endianness when converting the integer to float. + +Wait, when the code does *(float*)&i, it's taking the 4 bytes of the integer i and reinterpreting them as a float. So if i is 1, stored as a 32-bit integer in memory. On a big-endian system, the bytes are 00 00 00 01. On a little-endian system, they are 01 00 00 00. When those bytes are interpreted as a float, the value would be different. The native PPC output is 1.4e-45, which would correspond to the big-endian byte order. The QEMU output is 2.8e-45, which is exactly double. Let's see what the actual bit pattern would be. If the bytes were 00 00 00 01 (big-endian), that's the same as the 32-bit integer 1. But if QEMU is somehow interpreting it as little-endian, the bit pattern would be 01 00 00 00, which is 0x01000000. Let's see what that represents as a float. The sign bit is 0, exponent is 0x01 (which is 1 in hex, but as part of the exponent field). Wait, the exponent is 8 bits. If the first byte is 0x01, then the exponent bits are 0x01 (assuming big-endian). Wait, no, if the float is stored in big-endian, the first byte is the sign and exponent. But if the bytes are 0x01 followed by zeros (as in little-endian), then the exponent would be 0x01, which is 1. The actual exponent is 1 - 127 = -126. The mantissa is all zeros. So the value would be 1.0 * 2^-126. Let's compute that. 2^-126 is approximately 1.5e-38. But that's not matching the numbers given. Hmm, maybe I'm getting confused here. + +Alternatively, maybe the issue is that QEMU is not correctly emulating the PowerPC's floating-point unit. For example, when the code reinterprets the integer as a float, the PowerPC would do that by taking the 32 bits as the float's bits (since it's big-endian). But if QEMU is translating the code to x86, which is little-endian, perhaps there's a mistake in how the bits are handled. For example, if QEMU is not adjusting the endianness when converting between integer and float, leading to the bits being in the wrong order. Let's take the example: the uint32_t is 1, stored as 0x00000001 (big-endian). When cast to a float, that's the same as the 32-bit float with the bit pattern 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001. That's a subnormal number, as discussed earlier. However, if QEMU is interpreting the integer as little-endian when converting to float, the bit pattern would be 0x01000000, which would be a different float. Let's calculate that. The bit pattern would be sign bit 0, exponent 0x01 (so 1 - 127 = -126), and mantissa 0x000000. That would be 1.0 * 2^-126 ≈ 1.5e-38. But the user's QEMU output is 2.8e-45, which is much smaller. So that's not matching. + +Wait, maybe there's a mistake in the way QEMU handles the float conversion. For example, if the code is using a cast to reinterpret the bits, but QEMU's translation is not handling the endianness correctly. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is that the host system (x86) uses IEEE floats, but QEMU is not correctly handling the PowerPC float format. But PowerPC uses the same IEEE 754 format for 32-bit floats as x86, right? So the bit pattern should be the same. Therefore, the problem is not the float format but the way the bits are being interpreted. + +Wait, perhaps the problem is that when the code does *(float*)&i, the PowerPC would take the 4 bytes as a big-endian float, but QEMU is handling it as little-endian. For example, if the code is generating a load of the 32-bit integer into a float register, but on PowerPC, the load is done in big-endian, whereas QEMU is emulating it as little-endian. So the same 4 bytes (00 00 00 01) would be interpreted as the float 0x01000000 in little-endian, which would be a different value. Let's calculate that. The bit pattern in little-endian would be 01 00 00 00 in memory, which as a 32-bit value is 0x01000000. The sign bit is 0, exponent is 0x01 (which is 1 in the exponent field), and the mantissa is 0x000000. So the value is 1.0 * 2^(1 - 127) = 2^-126 ≈ 1.5e-38. But the QEMU output is 2.8e-45, which is 2^-147. How does that happen? Wait, maybe the actual bit pattern is different. Let me think again. + +If the integer is 1, stored in memory as 00 00 00 01 (big-endian), then when you cast that to a float, the float's bits are 0x00000001. The exponent is all zeros (so subnormal), and the mantissa is 1. The value is (0 + 1 * 2^-23) * 2^-126 = 1/(2^23 * 2^126) = 1/(2^149) ≈ 1.4e-45. Which matches the native PPC output. However, if QEMU is interpreting the same bytes as little-endian, then the float's bit pattern would be 0x01000000. The exponent is 0x01 (binary 00000001), which is 1. The exponent bias is 127, so actual exponent is 1 - 127 = -126. The mantissa is 0. So the value is 1.0 * 2^-126 ≈ 1.5e-38. But the QEMU output is 2.8e-45, which is 2.8e-45 ≈ 1/(2^147). So that's not matching either. Hmm. + +Wait, perhaps there's another factor. Maybe the problem is not endianness but the actual conversion between integer and float. For example, when you cast an integer to a float, the C standard says that the integer is converted to the floating-point type. But in this case, the code uses a cast via a pointer, which is undefined behavior unless you use -fno-strict-aliasing and the types are compatible. However, the user is using -fno-strict-aliasing. But perhaps the real issue is that the code is relying on the representation of the integer as a float, which depends on the endianness. + +But the user's test case is designed to check how the bits are reinterpreted. So the problem is that QEMU is not correctly emulating the PowerPC's handling of this reinterpretation. Since the output under QEMU is different from the native PPC output, it suggests that QEMU's emulation of the PowerPC's floating-point operations is incorrect. + +The question is whether this is an instruction translation error, a syscall error, or a runtime error. Since the issue is in the arithmetic or data conversion (reinterpreting the bits of an integer as a float), and the problem is that the result is different under QEMU, this would point to an error in how QEMU translates the PowerPC instructions that handle floating-point operations. Therefore, the category would be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821515 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821515 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d3980414 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1821515 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this QEMU bug falls into. The user is saying that QEMU's PPC emulator (qemu-ppc) incorrectly converts a float NaN to a double that isn't a NaN. They provided a test case where comparing two NaN floats in QEMU gives a different result than on real hardware. + +First, I need to understand what's happening here. The problem is about floating-point handling. The user says that when converting a float (which is a NaN) to a double, QEMU is producing a non-NaN double. On real hardware, converting a float NaN to a double should preserve the NaN. The test case shows that QEMU's result is a normalized number instead of a NaN. + +Now, looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +An "instruction" category bug would be if QEMU is incorrectly emulating a specific CPU instruction. Since this is about floating-point conversion, which is handled by the CPU's instruction set, it's possible that the QEMU emulator for PowerPC isn't correctly implementing the instruction that converts a single-precision float to double-precision. + +The "syscall" category is for system call errors. This doesn't seem to involve system calls; it's about the user-space floating-point operations. So probably not syscall. + +The "runtime" category is for other runtime errors. But the problem here is in the emulation of the CPU instructions, which is a core part of QEMU. Since the issue is about how the emulator handles a specific instruction (float to double conversion), it's more likely an instruction-level bug. + +Therefore, the classification should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6c1430e47 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824344 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the retf or iret instructions causing a page fault with an incorrect error code. The problem occurs in a non-KVM guest, specifically when executing these instructions in userspace with an invalid stack pointer. The error code's bit 2 isn't set, leading the guest OS to mistakenly think the fault happened in kernel space, which could cause a panic. + +First, I need to determine which category this falls into: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about the handling of specific instructions (retf, iret, iretq) and how they generate an incorrect error code when a page fault occurs. The issue is triggered by executing these instructions with an invalid stack pointer. Since the problem is directly related to the execution of these instructions and how QEMU emulates them, it seems like it's an instruction-related bug. + +Syscall would involve system calls made by the program, but here the problem is at the instruction level, not involving OS syscalls. Runtime errors are more general, but the key here is that the incorrect error code is a result of how QEMU handles the specific instruction's execution. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824778 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824778 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dab16a60d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1824778 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the PowerPC64 tlbivax instruction not working for addresses above 4G. The problem is due to a 32-bit truncation of the address. They mention changing the argument type from uint32_t to target_ulong in a specific function fixes it. + +First, I need to classify this into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about the tlbivax instruction's handling of addresses. Since tlbivax is an instruction, and the issue is that the instruction isn't working correctly for certain addresses, this seems like an instruction-related bug. The problem isn't with a system call but with how the instruction processes addresses. The truncation is part of the instruction's implementation in QEMU. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a615a9200 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1826568 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report from QEMU related to RISC-V. The error message says "Disassembler disagrees with translator over instruction decoding". The log line shows an illegal instruction with a specific address and a hex code. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem here seems to be about instruction decoding. The disassembler and the translator (maybe the emulator) don't agree on how to decode the instruction. That's probably an issue with how the instruction is being translated or emulated, which would fall under the 'instruction' category. There's no mention of a system call here, so it's not a syscall. Runtime is for other errors, but the core issue is instruction decoding. So the answer should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d5af35aac --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1828867 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the translation of certain x86 instructions. The problem occurs when using the REX prefix with LAHF and SAHF. The issue is that QEMU is incorrectly translating these instructions, specifically by involving the RSP register when it shouldn't. The user mentions that on actual hardware, the REX prefix doesn't affect LAHF/SAHF because they only use AH. The problem is in how QEMU handles the combination of REX and these instructions. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is about the incorrect translation of specific instructions (LAHF/SAHF with REX). Since it's about the instruction decoding or execution in QEMU, the category would be "instruction". The issue isn't a syscall or a runtime error like a crash, but rather the instruction's behavior being wrong. So the answer should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..666f97766 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1832422 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to SSE comparison operations using an 8-bit immediate. The problem is that when the immediate value is oversized, it throws a SIGILL. The example given is the cmppd instruction with an immediate of 0xd1. According to the documentation, only certain bits are used (bits 2:0 for SSE, 4:0 for AVX). The current QEMU code checks if the value is >=8 and triggers an illegal instruction signal, but the correct approach should be to mask the immediate to the relevant bits. + +So, the issue is that QEMU isn't handling the immediate value correctly. Instead of masking it to the valid bits, it's checking if it's out of the 0-7 range, which causes a SIGILL for values like 0xd1 (which is 13 in decimal, so definitely >=8). The fix would involve masking the immediate to the lower bits as per the instruction's encoding rules. + +Now, the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since this is about an instruction's handling, specifically the SSE cmppd instruction's immediate value processing, the correct category should be "instruction". The problem lies in how the instruction is decoded or executed, not in a system call or general runtime error. The SIGILL is a result of incorrect instruction handling, so it's an instruction-related bug. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..09182a509 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1833 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's ARM64 SME ST1Q instruction. The problem is that it's storing 9 bytes instead of 16 per 128-bit element. They tracked it down to a specific line in the code where a '+1' should be '+8'. + +The question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The 'instruction' category is for when the bug is related to a specific CPU instruction being emulated incorrectly. 'Syscall' would be for system call handling issues, like when the OS interface is wrong. 'Runtime' is for other runtime errors not related to instructions or syscalls. + +In this case, the bug is about the ST1Q instruction in the SME (Scalable Matrix Extension) of ARM64. The QEMU emulation of this instruction is incorrect. The user provided a test case that uses inline assembly to trigger the instruction and shows that QEMU doesn't handle it properly. The fix is in the helper code for SME, specifically in how the bytes are copied. Since the issue is directly related to the emulation of a specific machine instruction, this should fall under the 'instruction' category. + +There's no mention of system calls here. The problem is entirely about the correct execution of the ST1Q instruction, which is part of the CPU's instruction set. Therefore, the classification should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1835693 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1835693 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bcbf14744 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1835693 @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is having a segmentation fault when running an s390x binary using qemu-s390x-static on a Debian Buster host. The problem occurs with a simple Hello World program compiled with s390x-linux-gnu-g++. + +First, I need to recall what each category means. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +An "instruction" category would imply that the bug is due to incorrect or faulty CPU instructions being executed. Maybe QEMU is translating or executing some specific instruction wrong for s390x. + +A "syscall" issue would be related to system calls not being handled properly by QEMU. For example, if the program makes a system call that QEMU doesn't correctly emulate, leading to a crash. + +"Runtime" is a catch-all for other runtime errors that don't fit into instruction or syscall. Maybe it's something like library incompatibilities, dynamic linking issues, or environment setup problems. + +In this case, the user is running a static binary with qemu-s390x-static. The Hello World program is simple and uses iostream, so it's linking against C++ standard libraries. If there's a problem with how QEMU handles certain instructions specific to s390x, that would fall under instruction. However, if the problem is that the system calls made by the C++ standard library (like writing to stdout) aren't being correctly emulated, then it's a syscall issue. + +But wait, a segmentation fault could be caused by many things. For example, maybe the QEMU emulator isn't properly setting up the memory layout for the s390x binary, leading to a crash when the program starts. Or maybe the static binary is missing some runtime components that QEMU isn't providing. + +Alternatively, maybe the issue is with the way the binary is built. The user is using the s390x-linux-gnu-g++ cross-compiler. If there's a mismatch between the cross-compiler's expectations and QEMU's emulation, that could lead to problems. For example, if the cross-compiler generates code that uses certain s390x instructions that QEMU doesn't handle correctly, that would be an instruction issue. + +However, since the program is so simple, it's possible that the problem is in the initial execution flow. For example, if QEMU isn't correctly handling the entry point or the startup code of the binary, leading to a segfault when trying to execute the first instructions. That would likely be an instruction-related problem. + +On the other hand, if the segfault occurs when the program makes a system call (like writing to stdout), then it's a syscall issue. But in this case, the program is using cout, which is part of the C++ standard library. The actual system call might be handled by the C library (like glibc), and if QEMU isn't emulating the necessary syscalls for that, then it's a syscall problem. + +But given that the same QEMU setup might work for other binaries, but not for this one, perhaps there's a more specific issue. The key here is that the user is using a static binary. If the static binary includes all necessary libraries, but QEMU is missing some emulation for the syscalls those libraries rely on, then it's a syscall issue. + +Alternatively, perhaps the problem is that the static binary is built with certain assumptions about the CPU features that QEMU isn't emulating correctly. For example, if the cross-compiler targets a specific version of s390x that QEMU doesn't fully support, leading to incorrect instruction execution. + +I think the most likely category here is "instruction" because the segfault could stem from QEMU not correctly emulating specific s390x instructions required by the binary. However, it's also possible that the segfault is due to a syscall not being handled. + +But given that the user is running a static binary, which doesn't rely on shared libraries, the problem is less likely to be a missing syscall (since dynamic linking issues would be more apparent). However, the standard libraries (like libstdc++) are still needed, even in static binaries. Wait, no—if it's truly static, it should include all necessary libraries. + +But if QEMU's emulation of the system calls needed for output (like write to stdout) is broken, then that would be a syscall issue. For example, if the program segfaults when trying to call the write system call, perhaps because QEMU isn't handling that particular syscall correctly. + +But how to decide between instruction and syscall? Maybe looking at the stack trace or where exactly the segfault occurs would help. Since we don't have that, we need to infer. + +Another angle: if the problem is that the binary is not being executed correctly at the instruction level (like wrong instruction decoding or execution), leading to the segfault before any syscalls are made. For example, if the initial code setup is wrong. + +In the absence of more information, I think that the most appropriate category here is "runtime" because the error occurs during the execution of the program, but it's not clearly an instruction or syscall issue. However, the options don't have a general runtime category. Wait, the categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. So "runtime" is an option for errors that happen during runtime but aren't specifically instruction or syscall. + +Alternatively, if the problem is that the QEMU emulator isn't setting up the environment correctly (like stack, memory, etc.), leading to a segfault when the program starts running, that's a runtime issue. + +But maybe the problem is that the C++ standard library's startup code is making a system call that QEMU doesn't handle. For example, when the program starts, it initializes the C++ runtime, which might involve syscalls. If that's where the segfault occurs, it's a syscall issue. + +Alternatively, if the segfault is due to an instruction that QEMU doesn't emulate correctly, like a specific s390x instruction used by the C++ standard library code. + +Since the problem is with a Hello World program, which is very basic, it's possible that the problem is in the initial execution flow. For example, the main function is called, but perhaps the way QEMU handles the function prologue/epilogue is incorrect. That would be an instruction issue. + +However, I'm not certain. Given the options, I think the safest bet is to categorize it as "runtime" because it's a general runtime error that doesn't clearly fall under instruction or syscall. But I'm not entirely sure. Alternatively, if the segfault is due to a specific instruction being emulated incorrectly, then it's "instruction". + +Another thought: The user is using qemu-s390x-static. If there's an issue with how QEMU is translating or executing the s390x instructions for the binary, that would be an instruction error. Since the problem is a segfault, which could be due to an invalid memory access caused by incorrect instruction execution (e.g., incorrect address calculation), that would point to an instruction problem. + +But without more details, it's challenging. However, given that the problem is with a static binary, and the error occurs when running under QEMU, it's possible that the QEMU emulator is not correctly handling certain instructions required by the s390x binary. Therefore, the category might be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836078 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836078 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a76498571 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836078 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to QEMU regressions when running GCC tests on the arm-linux-gnueabihf target. They mentioned that after using a specific QEMU commit, even with a fix for a known bug, all the tests cause QEMU to crash. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to figure out what's causing the crashes. The problem started after updating QEMU, which suggests it's a regression. The user is running GCC tests, which are binaries compiled for ARM. The fact that QEMU crashes could be due to incorrect handling of instructions (instruction category), issues with system calls (syscall), or other runtime errors. + +Since the user mentions that the tests used to pass with QEMU 3.1 but now crash with a recent version, it's likely a regression in QEMU's handling of certain instructions or system calls. The instruction category would apply if QEMU is executing an incorrect instruction, perhaps due to a translation or emulation error. The syscall category would be if the problem is in how QEMU handles system calls made by the test programs. Runtime errors could be more general, like memory management issues or other runtime environment problems. + +The user provided a fix for a previous bug related to system calls (bug 1834496), which was about syscalls. However, even after that fix, the crashes persist. This might suggest that the current issue isn't directly related to that syscall fix. However, since the tests are crashing, it could be that the emulator is hitting some unhandled instructions or exceptions during execution. If the tests are exercising specific ARM instructions that QEMU now mishandles, that would fall under the instruction category. Alternatively, if the tests are making syscalls that QEMU isn't handling correctly, it would be syscall. But since the problem is that QEMU is crashing, which is a runtime error, maybe it's a runtime issue like a segmentation fault in QEMU itself when processing certain instructions or syscalls. + +But the categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for when the bug is about incorrect instruction emulation. The syscall category is for syscall handling errors. Runtime is for other runtime issues. Since the user says all tests cause QEMU to crash, and it's a regression, it's possible that the QEMU emulator is encountering an unhandled instruction, leading to a crash. Alternatively, maybe a system call is being made that QEMU doesn't emulate correctly, causing a crash. However, since the user mentions that the tests are binaries and shared libraries, and the problem is that QEMU crashes when running them, it's more likely an issue within QEMU's execution of the instructions, leading to a crash. Therefore, the most likely category is instruction. But wait, maybe it's a runtime error in QEMU, like a null pointer dereference or similar when processing the test binaries. The categories are a bit ambiguous here. However, the instruction category is for when the problem is with how instructions are emulated. Since the tests are crashing QEMU, perhaps QEMU is encountering an instruction it can't handle, leading to a crash. That would be instruction. Alternatively, if QEMU is crashing due to a bug in its own code during execution, that's runtime. The problem is that the user is not providing specific details, but the key is that the tests cause QEMU to crash. Given that the user is pointing to a specific CPU configuration (cortex-a57 with crypto-neon-fp-armv8), it's possible that QEMU is not correctly emulating some specific instructions related to that CPU, leading to a crash. Therefore, the category would be instruction. However, if the crash is in QEMU's code due to a bug in the emulator, that's runtime. The challenge here is to determine whether the crash is due to QEMU not handling an instruction (instruction category) or due to a runtime error in QEMU itself (runtime category). The categories are defined as: instruction is when a faulty instruction is the issue, syscall is syscall errors, runtime is other runtime errors. Since the user's problem is that QEMU crashes when running the tests, which could be due to incorrect instruction handling (leading to a crash) or a runtime error in QEMU. Without more details, but given that the user mentions the CPU configuration and that it's a regression, I think it's more likely an instruction-related issue. So the answer would be instruction. But wait, maybe the tests are making system calls that QEMU doesn't handle, leading to a crash. However, the user mentioned that after applying a fix for a syscall-related bug, the problem still occurs. Therefore, it's less likely to be syscall. So instruction or runtime. The instruction category is for when the bug is in the instruction emulation. If QEMU is crashing because it encounters an instruction it doesn't know how to handle, that's instruction. If QEMU is crashing due to a bug in its own code (like a buffer overflow, etc.), that's runtime. Since the user is pointing to a regression in QEMU, it's possible that a recent change introduced a bug in the instruction emulation code, causing crashes. Therefore, the category is instruction. Alternatively, if the crash is in the QEMU runtime, like during execution of the emulator, it's runtime. But given that the problem is specific to certain instructions (given the CPU and FPU configuration), instruction is more likely. So I'll go with instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836192 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836192 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6bbc5a661 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1836192 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting regressions in QEMU when running GCC tests on the arm926 target. They mention that after using a specific QEMU commit, there are issues compared to QEMU 3.1. The GCC testsuite is failing, and they provided a test case. + +The key points here are that it's related to QEMU's handling of the arm926 CPU, and the problem shows up during the execution of GCC tests. The user configured GCC for arm10tdmi but uses QEMU's --cpu arm926. The bug might be in how QEMU emulates the CPU instructions for arm926, leading to incorrect behavior when the tests expect certain instruction handling. + +Since the problem is about the CPU instruction emulation (arm926 vs arm10tdmi), and the regressions are in the execution of the tests, this seems like an instruction-related issue. The user is pointing out that QEMU's master branch introduced regressions compared to an older version (3.1), which suggests a change in how instructions are being processed or emulated. The testsuite's failures would stem from incorrect instruction execution, so the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..30726949e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1841990 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the 'denbcdq' instruction in QEMU. They provided test cases where the output differs between running natively on ppc64le and using QEMU with Power9 CPU. The problem seems to be that the instruction isn't working as expected in QEMU. + +Looking at the test results, when run natively, the third line of output changes based on the input, but under QEMU, it stays the same. That suggests that QEMU isn't handling the instruction correctly. The user mentions possible endianness issues or problems with how the helper function is getting data, pointing to the gen_fprp_ptr in dfp-impl.inc.c. They think it might be related to how the instruction is implemented in QEMU, maybe with implicit register pairs or data not being passed correctly to the helper function. + +Since the issue is with the execution of a specific instruction (denbcdq) in QEMU, and the problem is that the instruction isn't having the expected effect, this falls under an instruction-related bug. There's no mention of syscalls or runtime errors outside of instruction execution. The core of the problem is the incorrect emulation of the instruction in QEMU. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0a44d9ebf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1847467 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out how to categorize this bug report. The user is saying that QEMU's x86_64 emulator isn't handling segment prefixes correctly in 64-bit mode. Specifically, when instructions use certain segment prefixes like DS, ES, SS, or CS, QEMU isn't ignoring them as it should. Instead, it's applying the DS segment's base, but according to the user, it should be using the FS base in this case. + +So, the problem is related to how QEMU processes these segment prefixes in 64-bit mode. The user provided a test case where using FS and DS prefixes leads to incorrect address calculation. The issue is that the prefixes are not being ignored, which is supposed to happen in 64-bit mode according to the x86 architecture. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is about how instructions are decoded or executed, particularly related to segment prefixes, this seems like it's an instruction-related issue. The problem isn't with a system call or runtime environment setup but with the actual execution of the instruction, specifically handling the segment overrides. So the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1857 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1857 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4943d2414 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1857 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a major performance slowdown in QEMU after a specific commit. The commit in question is about enabling FEAT_LSE2 for -cpu max on the ARM target. They mention that reverting the commit or using a different CPU model like cortex-a35 restores the performance. + +So, the problem seems to be related to a specific CPU feature (LSE2) being enabled by default in the max CPU model. The slowdown occurs when this feature is active. Since the issue is tied to a CPU feature and the code change in QEMU that enables it, this likely falls under how QEMU handles instructions or CPU features. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem isn't about a syscall, as it's related to CPU feature emulation. The instruction category might fit if the issue is about how certain instructions are handled. However, the slowdown could also be due to runtime emulation efficiency. But since the commit enables a specific feature (FEAT_LSE2) which probably involves new instructions or changes in how instructions are executed, the problem might stem from incorrect or inefficient handling of those instructions in QEMU. + +Alternatively, runtime errors are other runtime issues not covered by instruction or syscall. But since the slowdown is directly linked to enabling a CPU feature (which involves instruction set emulation), it's more likely an instruction-related issue. The commit enables a feature that changes the instruction set, and QEMU's emulation of those instructions is causing the slowdown. Therefore, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..87f217165 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1859713 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with ARM v8.3a's pauth feature not working correctly in QEMU. The specific problem is that when they corrupt the LR (link register) before the autiasp instruction, it doesn't catch the corruption. The expected result is that autiasp would place an invalid pointer in LR, but instead, it successfully authenticates and places a modified value. + +Looking into the details, they mention that the pauth_computepac function isn't robust against truncating. They provided examples where even with different inputs, the top and bottom bits are the same, which shouldn't be the case. The issue seems to be in how QEMU handles the pointer authentication instructions, specifically paciasp and autiasp. + +Since the problem is related to the execution of specific instructions (paciasp and autiasp) and their handling within QEMU's code, this points to an issue with the instruction implementation in QEMU. The user added traces in the QEMU code and found that the function responsible isn't handling certain cases correctly. This isn't a syscall issue or a runtime error like memory management; it's directly about the correctness of the instruction emulation. + +Therefore, the category should be "instruction" because the bug is in the instruction's implementation within QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1860056 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1860056 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f4aae15c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1860056 @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a segmentation fault when running a MIPS binary with QEMU on a Debian host. The problem is specifically with big endian 32-bit MIPS, while 64-bit and little endian 32-bit work fine. + +Hmm, segmentation faults in QEMU can be tricky. The user compiled a Hello World program using mips-linux-gnu-g++ and ran it, but it segfaults. The error message mentions QEMU uncaught target signal 11. So, the question is to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let's think about what could cause a segfault in this context. Since the same code works for other MIPS architectures (64-bit and little endian 32-bit), the issue might be specific to the big endian 32-bit emulation in QEMU. + +Instruction-related issues usually involve incorrect execution of CPU instructions. If QEMU's MIPS emulator has a bug in handling certain instructions specific to big endian mode, that could lead to a crash. For example, maybe an instruction related to memory access or endianness handling is not properly emulated. + +Syscall errors would involve system calls made by the program. However, the Hello World program uses cout, which involves system calls (like write), but if the problem is limited to a specific architecture, maybe the syscall handling is okay since other MIPS versions work. But why would big endian have a problem here? Maybe the syscalls are being translated or handled incorrectly in that specific case. + +Runtime errors could be related to dynamic linking, library issues, or environment setup. For example, maybe the C++ standard library (libstdc++) for MIPS big endian isn't properly installed or compatible. But the user is using cross-compiled tools, so perhaps the libraries are correctly set up. Also, if it's a runtime issue, maybe other programs would have similar issues, not just Hello World. + +But the problem is isolated to QEMU's emulation. Since the same binary works on other MIPS setups (assuming the cross-compiler produces correct code), the issue is likely in QEMU's handling of that specific architecture. + +Given that it's a segfault during execution of the program, and the problem is specific to the big endian 32-bit MIPS emulation in QEMU, this could be due to incorrect instruction emulation. For example, maybe the QEMU MIPS emulator for big endian 32-bit isn't properly handling certain instructions related to memory or the C++ runtime initialization. + +Alternatively, maybe there's an endianness-related bug in how QEMU handles memory or specific instructions for that configuration. Since instruction execution is fundamental to the emulator, this might fall under the 'instruction' category. + +But wait, could it be a runtime issue in QEMU's dynamic translator or the way it manages the execution environment? For example, if the TCG (Tiny Code Generator) has a bug in handling certain CPU modes. However, runtime here refers to the program's runtime environment, not QEMU's internal processing. + +The classification options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem seems to be in the execution of the program's instructions (as opposed to a system call or a runtime library issue), I think the category is 'instruction'. The segmentation fault suggests that the emulator is executing an incorrect instruction or mishandling memory access, which would be an instruction-level problem. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..097e70a90 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861404 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the VMOVDQU instruction in QEMU's AVX implementation, specifically when using YMM registers. They mentioned that when using YMM registers (which are 32 bytes), the VMOVDQU instruction only copies the first 16 bytes, but it works correctly with XMM registers (16 bytes). + +Looking at the code snippets provided, the problem seems to be in the gen_sse function where VMOVDQU is handled. The gen_ldo_env_A0 function is called, which uses two 8-byte loads and stores, totaling 16 bytes. That's correct for XMM registers, but YMM registers require 32 bytes. The code doesn't adjust for the register size, so when YMM is used, it's only doing the same 16-byte operation, hence the error. + +The user pointed out that the function gen_ldo_env_A0 should generate a copy size based on the register used. So the issue is that the instruction's handling in QEMU doesn't properly account for YMM registers, leading to incorrect data transfer. Since this is directly related to how the VMOVDQU instruction is implemented in QEMU's code, the category here would be "instruction". The problem is with the specific instruction's handling, not a syscall or a general runtime error. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861605 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861605 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..754a6b8db --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1861605 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a bug in QEMU related to LL/SC on MIPS. The problem started after a specific commit where env->llval was loaded as unsigned instead of sign-extended. This causes the CMPXCHG in gen_st_cond() to fail. They provided a fix and an alternative solution. + +Hmm. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue seems to be with the handling of a specific instruction (LL/SC, which are load-link and store-conditional instructions used for atomic operations). The bug is about the correct functioning of these instructions in the emulator. Since it's about the execution of an instruction, I'd think it's an 'instruction' category. But wait, maybe it's a runtime error? The problem is in the runtime handling of the instruction. However, the categories don't have a more specific option. The 'instruction' category is for when a faulty instruction is described. Since the bug is about the correct behavior of the instruction emulation, maybe it's 'instruction'. Alternatively, 'runtime' is for other runtime errors. The commit and fix are about the correct handling of the instruction's logic, so maybe 'instruction' is the right category here. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1862167 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1862167 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a9f2fcec0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1862167 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about QEMU's user-mode emulator for AArch64, specifically related to the SVE (Scalable Vector Extension) registers. The problem is that the QEMU version they're using only supports the maximum SVE register size of 2048 bits, but their target hardware has 512-bit SVE registers. When they run their assembler code, which uses 2048-bit load/store instructions, it causes a segmentation fault. + +Hmm. The user is asking if QEMU should have an option to specify a different SVE register size. The core issue here is that QEMU's current implementation doesn't allow for varying SVE register sizes, which is required by the ARMv8-A specification. The bug arises because the emulator isn't correctly handling the SVE register size that the actual hardware would support. + +Now, the categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem here is that the emulator isn't supporting the correct SVE register size, leading to incorrect execution of instructions. Since the instructions (like load/store) are being executed with the wrong register size, this would fall under an instruction-related issue. The segmentation fault is a symptom of the instruction not being handled properly due to the register size mismatch. + +Syscall errors are related to system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are more general, but the root cause here is the instruction execution based on the emulator's configuration. So the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a8ddaa3c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1863247 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the AArch64 EXT instruction when used on V registers in QEMU. They mention that the bits above 128 bits in the SVE register aren't being cleared to zero, which they say QEMU is retaining instead. The question is to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what the EXT instruction does. From what I remember, the EXT (Extract) instruction in ARM NEON/SVE is used to shift elements from one vector to another. When dealing with SVE registers (which are wider than the traditional 128-bit V registers), the EXT instruction should handle the higher bits properly. The user is saying that after executing the EXT instruction on V registers (which are 128-bit), the bits beyond 128 in the SVE register (like z0) aren't being zeroed out. But wait, V registers are only 128 bits, right? So if you're using the V register form of the instruction, maybe the SVE part isn't supposed to be involved here. However, when SVE is enabled, the Z registers are wider (like 2048 bits or more, depending on the implementation). But the EXT instruction for V registers should operate only on the lower 128 bits, and the rest of the Z register should be zeroed or unaffected? Wait, the user is saying that after using EXT on V registers, the bits above 128 in z0 (which is the SVE register) are not cleared. But if the instruction is operating on V registers (which are 128-bit), perhaps the SVE part isn't involved here. However, in SVE, the Z registers are used, which are larger. Maybe when using the V registers, the upper bits of the Z register (beyond 128) should be zeroed. But the problem here is that after executing an EXT instruction on the V registers, those upper bits in the corresponding Z register (z0) are not being cleared. So QEMU is not correctly handling the fact that using the V register variant should zero out the higher bits in the SVE register. That sounds like an error in how the instruction is implemented in QEMU. Since the EXT instruction's behavior is incorrect in this specific scenario, this would fall under the "instruction" category. The syscall category is for system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are more about execution environment issues, but this is about incorrect instruction execution. So the answer should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cc5e3b422 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1873898 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU's ARM linux-user mode where the BKPT instruction isn't causing a SIGTRAP. They provided a test case with C code that uses inline assembly for BKPT on ARM and BRK on AArch64. When run under QEMU, the AArch64 version correctly triggers a SIGTRAP, but the ARM version doesn't. + +The problem seems to be in how QEMU handles the EXCP_BKPT exception. The report mentions that the code treats EXCP_BKPT similarly to EXCP_SWI, leading to a syscall instead of a signal. The root cause might be historical, where BKPT was used for semihosting, but now that handling is different. The suggested fix is to make EXCP_BKPT deliver a SIGTRAP like on AArch64. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is about the BKPT instruction not generating the correct signal. Since BKPT is an instruction, and the problem is that the instruction isn't being handled properly (it's being treated as a syscall instead of causing a trap), this seems to be an instruction-related bug. The syscall category is about errors in system calls, but here the problem isn't the syscall itself but how the BKPT instruction is processed. Runtime is for other runtime errors, but the core issue here is the instruction handling. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..78a2a6204 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1874888 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user provided a code snippet that causes QEMU to crash with a "tcg fatal error". The error message mentions an assertion failure in the TCG (Tiny Code Generator) part of QEMU. + +Looking at the code, the main function is executing a buffer of bytes as a function. The buffer contains a series of x86-64 machine instructions. The problem seems to be that when QEMU's TCG tries to execute these instructions, it hits a fatal error. + +The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The error is related to executing specific machine instructions that QEMU can't handle properly. Since the crash occurs when processing these instructions, and the error message points to TCG, which is part of QEMU's dynamic translation, this looks like an issue with how QEMU handles certain instructions. + +The user also mentioned that other snippets with different instruction sequences cause similar issues. This suggests that the problem is with specific instructions that TCG might not support or has a bug in handling. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..13e0f2d4f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1877794 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user is talking about a problem in QEMU where a SIGILL (illegal instruction) occurs when running glxgears on ppc64le. They mentioned that the issue is related to constant folding on 64-bit subtraction causing a bad shift instruction. The problem arises because a shift instruction ends up with a -1 shift count, leading to an invalid instruction. + +First, the categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is caused by the code generation part of QEMU, specifically in the translator (translate.c). The user found that when constant folding is applied to subtraction, it leads to an invalid instruction being generated. The root cause seems to be in the translation phase where the optimizer is generating incorrect machine code due to a shift with an invalid immediate value. + +The error is not a system call (syscall) since the issue is in the generated machine code. It's not a runtime error in the general sense but rather an error in the instruction generation. However, the problem is that the instruction generated is invalid, leading to a SIGILL at runtime. But the classification options are instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The instruction category refers to a faulty instruction being described. Since the problem is that the optimizer is generating an invalid instruction (RLDICL with c=-1 leading to an invalid opcode), this seems to fit the "instruction" category. The error is in the instruction generation process. Even though it's caught at runtime as a SIGILL, the root cause is the incorrect instruction generated by the code, so the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..36d6f7e47 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1881450 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is having an issue where their math function emulation fails on the m68k Linux user mode in QEMU. The problem is that when they run the compiled program under QEMU, they get an "Illegal instruction" error. Other targets don't have this problem. The example code uses the expm1f() function, which is a math function. + +First, I need to remember what QEMU does. QEMU emulates the CPU either dynamically translating instructions or using TCG (Tiny Code Generator). For some targets, especially less common ones like m68k, there might be certain instructions that aren't properly emulated. + +The error is an illegal instruction, which suggests that QEMU is trying to execute an instruction that it doesn't recognize or can't emulate correctly. Since other targets don't have this issue, it's probably specific to the m68k emulation in QEMU. + +The user is using the -static flag when compiling, so it's possible that the math library (libm) is linked statically, and the generated code includes some instructions that are not supported by the m68k emulator in QEMU. Maybe the expm1f function on m68k uses a particular instruction that QEMU's m68k target doesn't handle correctly. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The error is an illegal instruction during execution, which points to an issue with how QEMU is handling a specific CPU instruction. So the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1883268 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1883268 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6a95b7456 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1883268 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting random errors when using QEMU 5.0 with the GCC testsuite, specifically failing the g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C test. The problem seems to be in the function f13, which calls __aarch64_cas8_acq_rel. That's a compare-and-swap function for AArch64, which is a specific instruction. + +The test is about synchronization, so it's using atomic operations. The user mentions that the issue happens when executing __aarch64_cas8_acq_rel, which is an intrinsic for the CAS instruction. The random failures suggest that maybe the QEMU emulator isn't handling that particular instruction correctly. Since the problem doesn't occur on native hardware, it's likely a QEMU issue. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is directly related to the execution of a specific CPU instruction (__aarch64_cas8_acq_rel), and the bug is in QEMU's emulation of that instruction, this would fall under the "instruction" category. The error isn't a system call or a runtime library issue, but rather how QEMU handles the low-level instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1885350 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1885350 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f440e3e38 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1885350 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user is talking about RISC-V dynamic rounding mode not working correctly in QEMU. They provided some code and a test case. + +First, the issue is with the floating-point rounding mode in RISC-V. The code snippet shows a function gen_set_rm that checks if the current rounding mode (ctx->frm) is the same as the new rm. If they are the same, it returns early without updating. But according to the RISC-V spec, when the rm field in the instruction is 7, the rounding mode should be taken from the frm field in the fcsr register. So if the user changes the frm register but the rm is 7, the code should pick up the new frm value each time. However, in the current code, once the frm is set, if it's the same as the previous, it doesn't call the helper function again. So if the frm is changed externally (like via the fcsr register), but the instruction's rm is still 7, the code doesn't re-check the frm value because it's the same as before. That's the problem here. + +The user's test case: they set rm to 7 and change frm before each execution. The first time, since ctx->frm is different, it updates. The second time, even though frm is changed, ctx->frm is already set to the previous value, so the code skips updating. But according to the spec, every time the instruction with rm=7 is executed, it should check the current frm value. So the code is caching the frm value and not re-reading it each time the instruction is executed. That's a mistake in how the dynamic rounding mode is handled. + +Now, the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The issue is about the instruction's handling of rounding mode. Since the problem is in how the instruction (with rm=7) is processed, specifically that it's not re-evaluating the frm register each time the instruction is executed, this is an instruction-related error. The code for gen_set_rm is part of the instruction decoding/emulation. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7de6c3fcd --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1889288 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about the BICS instruction in aarch64 and how the QEMU code for it doesn't set the flags. They mentioned looking at the translate-a64.c file and noticing that gen_logic_CC isn't called for BICS. + +First, I need to remember what BICS does. BICS is Bit Clear, which is like a bitwise AND between the first operand and the inverse of the second. But also, in ARM instructions, certain operations affect the condition flags. For example, logic operations usually set the N and Z flags. + +The user is pointing out that in QEMU's code generation for this instruction, the function gen_logic_CC isn't called. That function probably handles setting the condition codes (flags) after a logical operation. If it's missing, then when BICS is executed, the flags (like N, Z) won't be updated correctly. + +The question is whether this is an instruction-specific bug. Since the BICS instruction is supposed to set the flags according to the ARM architecture documentation, but QEMU's implementation isn't doing that, this is an error in how the instruction is implemented in QEMU. So the category should be "instruction" because it's about the correct behavior of a specific instruction not being implemented. + +I don't think it's a syscall issue because this is about CPU instruction emulation, not system calls. Runtime errors are more general, like crashes during execution, but here it's about incorrect behavior of an instruction. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1892081 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1892081 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f5dff1007 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1892081 @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU and performance improvement when using the QEMU_FLATTEN attribute with softfloat type conversions. The specific function mentioned is int32_to_float_64, which is part of the softfloat library used in QEMU for handling floating-point operations. + +The problem here is about performance, specifically the number of instructions per call decreasing by 63% when adding the QEMU_FLATTEN attribute. The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what QEMU_FLATTEN does. From what I recall, QEMU uses various attributes and macros to optimize code. The QEMU_FLATTEN attribute likely tells the compiler to inline the function or optimize it in a way that reduces the function call overhead. Flattening in this context might mean inlining or removing unnecessary steps in the function call. + +The issue is that without QEMU_FLATTEN, the function int32_to_float_64 is generating more instructions per call. Adding the attribute reduces that. The problem isn't a faulty instruction (which would be a wrong or invalid CPU instruction), nor is it a syscall (since syscalls involve OS interactions, which isn't mentioned here). The performance issue is happening at runtime, but the category options are instruction, syscall, runtime. + +Wait, the runtime category is for "other errors which happen in runtime." But here, it's more about optimization and performance, not an error. However, since the categories don't include a performance category, maybe the best fit is runtime. But the instruction category refers to a faulty instruction. Since the problem is about the efficiency of instructions (number of instructions executed), maybe instruction? But the user says it's a performance improvement, not a wrong instruction. + +The report is about how the function is being optimized, which affects the number of instructions executed during runtime. The error here isn't a runtime error but a performance issue. However, the categories don't have a performance category. Since the problem is about the instructions executed (i.e., the generated code's efficiency), maybe it's an instruction category. But the instruction category is for faulty instructions. Alternatively, maybe runtime is the correct category because it's about runtime performance, but the description says runtime is for "other errors which happen in runtime." + +Hmm. The original question says to classify the bug report into one of the three categories. Since the issue is about the efficiency of the code generation (instructions per call), but there's no actual error in the instructions themselves. The problem is that the function isn't optimized as well as it could be. The use of QEMU_FLATTEN fixes this by making the compiler generate fewer instructions. Since the problem is about the instructions being generated (and their count), maybe it's an instruction-related issue. However, the instruction category is for a faulty instruction, not about the number of instructions. + +Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime issue because it's about the runtime performance. But the description says "other errors which happen in runtime," implying actual errors, not performance. So perhaps the correct category is runtime? But I'm a bit confused. + +Wait, the user says "Classify the given bug report. It is part of qemu." The possible categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. The bug report is about performance improvement via reducing instructions per call. Since the problem is that the code wasn't optimized (leading to more instructions), and adding QEMU_FLATTEN fixes it by making the code more efficient. Since there's no actual incorrect instruction being executed, but rather the code path is less optimal, perhaps the category is instruction? Or maybe runtime? + +The instruction category is for when a faulty instruction is described. Here, the instructions are correct, but there are more of them than necessary. So it's not an instruction error. The issue is in the code generation or optimization, which affects runtime performance. Since the runtime category includes other runtime errors, but here it's not an error but an optimization. However, since the categories don't have a performance category, perhaps the best fit is runtime. + +Alternatively, maybe the instruction count is part of the instruction category. But I'm not sure. The user's example says that adding QEMU_FLATTEN decreases the instructions per call. The problem was that the function was generating more instructions than necessary, which is a code generation issue. Since code generation is part of the compiler's job, but in QEMU's context, maybe the function's implementation is causing more instructions. + +Given the options, the most appropriate category is probably "instruction" because it's about the number and efficiency of instructions executed. However, if the problem is that the code isn't optimized (but correct), and the fix is an optimization, then it's not an error. But the categories don't have an optimization category. The user says it's part of QEMU, so maybe the QEMU_FLATTEN is a QEMU-specific attribute that changes how functions are compiled. + +The instruction category refers to a faulty instruction. Since the instructions are correct but not optimal, perhaps it's not an instruction error. Then, maybe the correct category is runtime, as it's about performance during runtime. The user mentioned KCachegrind performance data, which is a runtime analysis tool. So the issue is observed at runtime, hence runtime category. + +But the description says runtime is for "other errors which happen in runtime." Since there's no error, but a performance problem, maybe it's not runtime. However, the categories don't have a performance category. The user might expect the answer to be "instruction" because it's about instruction count, but the problem isn't a faulty instruction. Alternatively, maybe the answer is "runtime" as it's about performance during execution. + +Given the options, I think the correct answer is "instruction" because the issue is about the number of instructions executed. But I'm not entirely sure. Alternatively, maybe the answer is "runtime." + +Wait, the user says that adding QEMU_FLATTEN decreases the instructions per call. The problem is that without it, the function is generating more instructions. So the original code is generating more instructions, which is inefficient. The category is about what kind of bug it is. Since it's not a wrong instruction but an inefficiency in the code generation, perhaps it's not an instruction bug. If the code is correct but slow, then it's a performance issue, which would fall under runtime. But the runtime category is for errors, not performance. + +Hmm. The user's possible categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. The bug report is about performance improvement, which is a code generation/optimization issue. Since there's no error, but an inefficiency, perhaps it's not any of the three. However, the user says to choose from these. The closest is maybe instruction, since it's about instructions per call. So the answer is "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1898954 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1898954 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d11750961 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1898954 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU where using the x86 opcode F1 (which is the INT 1 instruction) causes a hang when running under a Windows 10 (32-bit EFI) based QEMU, but it works in other environments like Linux, VBox, and real hardware. + +First, I need to recall what the INT 1 instruction does. INT 1 is the debug interrupt, typically used to trigger a breakpoint. When this instruction is executed, the CPU should call the interrupt handler located at the IVT (Interrupt Vector Table) entry for vector 1. So, if the IVT is set up correctly, this should jump to the handler address stored there. + +The user mentions that the code in real mode (with a few NOPs followed by F1) works in other environments. That suggests that the issue isn't with the code itself but possibly with how QEMU handles the interrupt in a specific configuration. + +The problem occurs when using QEMU under Windows 10 32-bit EFI. The user is running QEMU as an executable (qemu-system-x86_64.exe or qemu-system-i386.exe) on Windows. The Linux version of QEMU doesn't have this issue, nor does VirtualBox. Also, it works on real hardware, which points to a QEMU-specific problem when running on Windows in this setup. + +The categories to consider are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue revolves around the execution of the INT 1 instruction and how QEMU handles it in a specific OS environment, it's likely an instruction-related issue. The problem isn't with a system call (syscall) but rather with the execution of a particular CPU instruction within QEMU's emulation. The fact that the instruction behaves differently under Windows QEMU compared to other environments suggests that there's a flaw in how QEMU emulates the INT 1 instruction in that specific setup, possibly due to differences in host OS support or configuration. + +So, the bug is related to the instruction handling in QEMU, making the category "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0111b4b77 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1901 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's SPARC emulation, specifically with the VIS fmul8x16 instruction. They mention that when they run their test program in QEMU, the results are wrong—mostly zeros—whereas on real hardware it works correctly. The problem occurs in both 64-bit and 32-bit modes. + +First, I need to classify this bug according to the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The key here is that the issue is with the execution of a specific instruction, fmul8x16, which is part of the VIS (Visual Instruction Set) extensions for UltraSPARC. The user states that other VIS instructions work, but this particular one doesn't. Since the problem is with the emulation of that specific instruction in QEMU, it falls under the 'instruction' category. Syscall would be if there's an issue with system calls, and runtime is for other runtime errors, but here it's clearly an instruction emulation error. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e90f09bab --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904210 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's break this down. The user is dealing with a CTF reverse engineering challenge binary. The binary is supposed to handle the SIGILL signal using a custom handler at address 0x1193D. When the user inputs 'flag{', the binary is supposed to execute an illegal instruction at 0x10A68, which should trigger the SIGILL handler. + +In the older version of QEMU (2.5.0), the strace shows that after the write and read calls, it outputs "wrong!" and then exits without crashing. However, in the newer version (2.11.1), when the same input is given, it triggers a SIGILL, and QEMU crashes with an uncaught target signal. The key difference here is that in the older version, the signal handler is supposed to handle the illegal instruction, but in the newer version, QEMU itself isn't catching it, leading to a core dump. + +The problem seems to be related to how QEMU handles the SIGILL signal in different versions. The binary registers a handler for SIGILL, but in the newer QEMU version, when the illegal instruction is executed, QEMU doesn't properly pass the signal to the emulated process, or it's not handling it correctly, causing it to crash instead of allowing the handler in the binary to execute. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue revolves around the handling of a signal (SIGILL) during the execution of an illegal instruction, and the problem seems to be in how QEMU processes that signal, it's likely an issue with the instruction emulation. The illegal instruction is generated, and the signal handling for it isn't working as expected in the newer QEMU version. Therefore, the bug is related to the instruction handling in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904259 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904259 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b96a936fe --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1904259 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is trying to compile QEMU and ran into an error related to misaligned atomic operations. The error message mentions that using misaligned pointers for atomic operations can cause performance penalties. The specific lines in atomic.h are flagged by Clang 11 on Ubuntu 16 i686. + +Hmm, the error is about atomic operations being misaligned. That's a compiler warning treated as an error. The user is using clang-11, and the issue is with the generated code from the QEMU source. The problem is in the qatomic_set__nocheck and qatomic_read__nocheck macros, which are using __atomic_store_n and __atomic_load_n with a pointer that might not be properly aligned. + +Now, the categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Let's think. The error is during compilation, not at runtime. It's a compile-time check by the compiler about alignment. However, the categories provided don't include a compile-time category. The options are instruction, syscall, runtime. + +Wait, the user is encountering a build error, but the question is to classify the bug report into one of the three categories. Since the error is about atomic operations and alignment, which relates to how instructions are generated or handled by the compiler. The misaligned atomic operation would translate to a specific CPU instruction that might not be efficient, but the error itself is a compiler warning. However, the categories don't have a 'compiler' or 'build' option. + +Looking at the options again: instruction refers to a faulty instruction in the code. The error is about using an instruction (atomic operation) on a misaligned pointer, which could be an issue with how the instruction is applied. The compiler is warning that the instruction (like load or store) is being used on a misaligned address, which might not be efficient. So the root cause is that the code is generating an instruction that's not aligned properly. Therefore, the category would be 'instruction' because it's about the use of an incorrect instruction (in terms of alignment) leading to potential performance issues. + +Alternatively, if the error were during runtime, like a crash or incorrect behavior, it would be runtime. But here, it's a compile-time error about the atomic operation's alignment. However, the categories don't have a compile-time option, so the closest is instruction. The problem is that the code is generating an atomic instruction that's misaligned, which the compiler is catching. So the classification is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b42fff190 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1905356 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about QEMU not checking for unaligned data access in ARM32 instructions. They mentioned specific instructions like LDRD, STRD, LDREX, STREX which should require alignment according to ARM documentation. The example given is that an LDRD instruction at VA 0x10240 is accessing an unaligned address, but QEMU allows it without raising an alignment fault. The user says that QEMU 5.1.0 doesn't handle this correctly and suggests that a patch should raise a SIGBUS during translation when an unaligned address is detected. + +So, the problem is about the instruction execution not adhering to alignment requirements. The key here is that the ARM architecture specifies certain instructions must have aligned addresses, and QEMU isn't enforcing that. The bug is in how the instructions are handled during execution, which would be part of the instruction processing in QEMU. The user is pointing out that the translation process (tcg) should include a check for alignment. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since this is about the correct handling of specific instructions (LDRD, etc.) and their alignment checks, which are part of the instruction execution semantics, this falls under the "instruction" category. It's not a syscall issue because it's about CPU instructions rather than system calls. It's also not a general runtime error but a specific instruction behavior problem. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1907817 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1907817 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f25d2a7d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1907817 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an assertion error in QEMU after updating to version 5.2.0. The error is related to the TCG (Tiny Code Generator) component, specifically in the file tcg-op-gvec.c. The assertion failure is checking that (maxsz & max_align) == 0, which isn't the case when maxsz is 56. + +The user mentions that a specific commit (e2e7168a214b...) introduced this change. Before the commit, the code checked if maxsz was divisible by 8, but after the change, it's checking for alignment with max_align, which is calculated based on whether maxsz is >=16. For maxsz=56, the calculation of max_align would be 15 (since 56 >=16), and 56 & 15 is 8, not zero, hence the assertion failure. + +Looking at the backtrace, the error occurs during the generation of a vector move operation (tcg_gen_gvec_mov) which is part of translating an ARM64 instruction (handle_fpfpcvt). This seems to be during the execution of a specific instruction that involves moving or clearing vector registers. + +The problem arises because the code now enforces a stricter alignment check. The function simd_desc is generating a descriptor for a SIMD operation, and the size (56 bytes) isn't aligned properly according to the new check. This is likely due to an instruction expecting a certain vector size that doesn't meet the new alignment constraints introduced by the commit. + +Since the error is triggered by the execution of a specific instruction (as seen in the backtrace, like handle_fpfpcvt and disas_fp_int_conv), it's related to how QEMU is handling that particular instruction's translation. Therefore, this should be classified under the 'instruction' category because the issue stems from the incorrect handling or translation of an instruction leading to the assertion failure. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..48862910d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about a segfault in qemu-riscv64-static when running a specific test from Cockatrice. The backtrace points to code_gen_buffer in QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) part. The regression was introduced by a specific commit, and even the latest QEMU HEAD has the issue. + +Looking at the backtrace, the crash happens in cpu_tb_exec, which is part of the TCG execution. The instruction at 0x7fffe849f133 is movzwl 0x0(%r13),%r13d. The address here is 0x0(%r13), which would be dereferencing r13 as a pointer. If r13 is zero or invalid here, that would cause a segfault. + +The code in the disassembly shows that r13 is being used as a pointer to load a word, then manipulated. The issue might be an invalid memory access due to incorrect code generation by TCG. Since TCG is responsible for translating guest instructions to host instructions, a bug here could generate an invalid host instruction that accesses incorrect memory, leading to a segfault. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem seems to stem from incorrect host code generation (a faulty instruction generated by TCG that causes a segfault), this would fall under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall error, and while it's a runtime issue, the root cause is an incorrect instruction generated by QEMU's translator. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..256de83a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1908626 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having an issue with PostgreSQL/Greenplum's spinlock getting stuck when running in a QEMU-user static environment. They provided a test case that shows the problem. The problem doesn't occur on physical ARM64 servers, so it's specific to QEMU. + +The key part here is the spinlock using a test-and-set instruction. Spinlocks often rely on atomic operations for synchronization. QEMU's user mode emulation might not be correctly handling the specific CPU instructions that implement atomic test-and-set. + +The user's test code works on actual hardware but not under QEMU. This suggests that QEMU might be incorrectly emulating the necessary atomic instructions. The PANIC errors and the lock getting stuck imply that the atomic operations aren't working as expected, leading to race conditions or incorrect memory barriers. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem seems to be with the emulation of the test-and-set instruction in QEMU. Since the issue is related to a specific CPU instruction not being properly emulated, the category should be 'instruction'. It's not a syscall issue because the problem is in the atomic instruction, not system calls. Runtime is too broad here. The core issue is the instruction's incorrect emulation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..80ab92c5d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1909 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a segfault in QEMU 8.0.0 when incrementing a coverage counter. The problem doesn't occur in QEMU 6.2.0. The backtrace shows the crash happening in a function named __CortexA53843419_464004, which seems to be related to the gcov counter. The specific instruction causing the segfault is a store instruction (str x8, [x9, #2512]) where x9 is 5234688 and x8 is 1. The memory address x9+2512 is 0x4fe9d0, which is supposed to be a gcov counter symbol in the .bss section. + +First, I need to figure out why QEMU 8.0.0 is causing a segfault here. The key points are that it's related to the coverage counter increment, and the address is in .bss. .bss is the section for uninitialized variables. In the older QEMU version, it works, but in 8.0.0, it crashes. + +Possible causes could be a change in how QEMU handles memory regions, especially the .bss section. Maybe QEMU 8.0.0 isn't properly initializing or mapping the .bss section, leading to a segmentation fault when the program tries to write to it. Alternatively, there could be an issue with the emulator's handling of certain instructions that access memory. Since the crash happens during an instruction execution (the str instruction), it's likely an instruction-related problem. The user's classification options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Since the error occurs during execution of a specific instruction (the store), and the problem seems to be in how QEMU is handling that instruction's memory access, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. The syscall category would involve system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are more general, but the problem is specifically tied to the execution of the instruction, so instruction is the correct classification. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..34124a137 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1912934 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's emulation of the fmadds instruction on powerpc64le. The problem is that when they run their test program, it returns 0 on real hardware (POWER8E) but 32 under QEMU emulation on different setups. The key here is that the fmadds instruction is a floating-point fused multiply-add. + +The user checked that QEMU isn't using the host's libc fmaf or fma functions. The host's glibc implementation works correctly, so the issue isn't with the host's math functions. Since the problem occurs specifically when emulating the fmadds instruction, which is part of the PowerPC instruction set, it points to QEMU's instruction emulation for that specific opcode being incorrect. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is related to the emulation of a specific instruction (fmadds), the correct category should be 'instruction'. The problem isn't with a system call or general runtime environment but with how QEMU handles that particular machine instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a518d2c8e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1913913 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's break this down. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's i386-linux-user mode where the sigcontext->trapno is returning -1. This causes certain 16-bit Windows programs running under WINE to crash. The problem seems to happen when these programs make DOS calls using int 21h (CD 21). + +WINE expects an exception/signal when these interrupts are called, which allows it to handle the int 21h properly. However, in QEMU's case, the trapno is -1, which confuses WINE's structured exception handling, leading it to treat the exception as an unhandled error. + +The user is asking to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let's consider "instruction." The bug is related to how QEMU handles the CD 21 instruction (int 21h), which is a software interrupt. If QEMU isn't correctly raising the appropriate exception or setting the trapno when this instruction is executed, especially in 16-bit code, that could be an instruction handling issue. The problem here is that the trapno is -1, which suggests that the exception isn't being correctly identified. Since the issue is about how the instruction is processed and the exception is not properly captured, this might fall under the instruction category. + +Next, "syscall." Syscall errors are typically related to system calls made to the OS. However, in this case, the problem is not with a system call but with an interrupt that's part of the program's execution. The int 21h is a DOS interrupt, not a Unix syscall. So probably not a syscall issue. + +Lastly, "runtime" covers other runtime errors. However, the problem is specifically about the handling of an instruction (int 21h) leading to incorrect trapno values. Since the user is pointing out that the instruction's handling is causing the trapno to be wrong, and the error stems from how the instruction is emulated, this seems more like an instruction-related bug. + +Therefore, the correct classification is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..decc49c44 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1914021 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is running an ARM binary with QEMU and getting an illegal instruction error, but when debugging with GDB, it exits normally. The ELF file is for ARM, so QEMU is emulating the ARM CPU. + +First, the error message "uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction)" suggests that the CPU is trying to execute an instruction it doesn't recognize or isn't allowed. But when using GDB remote debugging, it works. That's odd. Why would debugging change the behavior? + +Possible reasons: maybe the binary uses some CPU features that aren't properly emulated in QEMU 4.0.0. For example, certain ARM instructions or coprocessor operations. If the binary is using a VFP (Vector Floating Point) instruction but QEMU's emulation for that is missing or broken in version 4.0.0, that could cause an illegal instruction. However, the user mentioned the Flags in the ELF include soft-float ABI, so maybe the binary is supposed to use software floating point instead of hardware. If QEMU's ARM emulator is trying to handle VFP instructions but the binary isn't expecting it, maybe that's a conflict. + +Wait, the Flags field says "Version5 EABI, soft-float ABI". ARM EABI with soft-float means the code shouldn't use VFP instructions. If the binary is compiled with soft-float, but QEMU is trying to execute VFP instructions, that would be invalid. But why would that happen? Maybe the binary has some code that's supposed to be handled by the soft-float emulator, but QEMU's emulation isn't handling that correctly. Or perhaps there's a mismatch in how QEMU is translating the instructions. + +Another angle: when running under GDB, the execution is single-stepped or handled differently. Maybe the illegal instruction is triggered only when running normally, but under GDB, the program might be exiting before hitting that instruction. Or GDB might be intercepting the signal and allowing the program to exit normally. For example, if the program has a bug where it jumps to an invalid address, but during debugging, the GDB might catch that and handle it, whereas QEMU without GDB would crash. + +But the user says that when remote debugging with GDB, the program exited normally. That suggests that the illegal instruction isn't present when GDB is attached. How could that be? Maybe the presence of GDB changes the execution path. For example, maybe the program checks if it's being debugged and skips the problematic code. But that's a stretch. + +Alternatively, maybe QEMU's just-in-time compiler (TCG) has a bug in version 4.0.0 when handling certain ARM instructions, leading to an illegal instruction. When running under GDB, perhaps the execution is done via the interpreter mode instead of TCG, avoiding the bug. But QEMU typically uses TCG for emulation, and GDB would step through the translated code. Hmm. + +Another thought: the binary might be using a specific instruction that's not supported in QEMU 4.0.0's ARM emulation. For example, a newer ARM instruction that wasn't emulated correctly in that version. If the user's QEMU is outdated, maybe upgrading would fix it. But the user is asking about classifying the bug, not solving it. + +The problem seems to be related to the execution of an instruction that QEMU can't handle, hence the illegal instruction error. Since the same binary works under GDB, maybe the way QEMU is emulating the CPU is different. But the core issue is an illegal instruction, which points to an instruction-related problem. The category options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since it's about an illegal instruction during execution, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..24214a420 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1915327 @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that the QEMU TCG (Tiny Code Generator) doesn't match the real x86_64 CPU behavior when executing the cmpxchg instruction. They provided a test program that shows different results between actual hardware and QEMU. + +The problem is that cmpxchg is supposed to leave the RAX register unchanged when the comparison is successful. On real CPUs, the output is the original RAX value (0x1234567812345678), but in QEMU, RAX is zero-extended, resulting in just 0x12345678. + +The key here is understanding how cmpxchg works. According to Intel's manual, when using cmpxchg with a 32-bit operand size, the EAX is compared with the memory operand. If it matches, then the EDX:EAX (for 32-bit) is written to the memory. However, when the operand size is 32 bits, the upper 32 bits of RAX (the R in RAX) should remain unchanged. Wait, no, actually, cmpxchg in 32-bit mode affects EAX, but in 64-bit mode, if you use the 32-bit operand size, then the upper 32 bits of RAX are zeroed. Wait, maybe the user's code is using a 32-bit cmpxchg in 64-bit mode? + +Looking at the code: the 'cmpxchg %[edi],%[mem]' instruction. The EDI is a 32-bit register (since edi is used, not rdi), so the operand size is 32 bits. The memory operand is an int (32 bits), and RAX is a 64-bit register. + +In x86-64, when you perform a 32-bit cmpxchg (like cmpxchgl), the RAX register is treated as EAX, and the upper 32 bits (RAX's higher part) are zeroed. However, in the user's code, RAX is a 64-bit register. Wait, but in the code, the initial RAX is set to 0x1234567812345678 (a 64-bit value). The cmpxchg is using a 32-bit operand (EDI and the memory is an int). So the instruction is cmpxchgl (32-bit), which would compare EAX (the lower 32 bits of RAX) with the memory. If they are equal, then the EDI value (0x77777777) is written to memory. However, regardless of success or failure, the RAX register's value is updated. Wait, no: if the comparison is successful, the memory is updated, and the EAX is set to the value from the memory (which is 0x12345678?), wait no. Wait, cmpxchg works like this: compare the value in AL/AX/EAX/RAX with the memory operand. If equal, then the memory operand is replaced with the value in the second operand (in this case, EDI). If not, then the value in the memory is loaded into AL/AX/EAX/RAX. + +Wait, in the code, the instruction is "cmpxchg %[edi],%[mem]". The syntax here is a bit tricky. The AT&T syntax for cmpxchg is "cmpxchg src, dest", but I think in x86 syntax, it's "cmpxchg dest, src". Wait, no, in AT&T syntax, it's "cmpxchg %src, dest". So in this case, the instruction is cmpxchg edi, mem. Which means, compare the value in RAX (the implicit first operand) with the memory. If they are equal, then the memory is replaced with EDI's value. Otherwise, RAX is updated with the memory's value. + +But the operand size here is 32 bits. So when using cmpxchg with a 32-bit operand size, RAX's lower 32 bits (EAX) is compared with the memory. The initial RAX is 0x1234567812345678. So EAX is 0x12345678. The memory is 0x12345678. So the comparison is equal. Therefore, the memory is updated to EDI's value (0x77777777), and RAX should remain unchanged. But according to the Intel manual, when the comparison is successful, the EAX is not modified. Wait, no: when the comparison is successful, the memory is updated, but RAX is not changed. Wait, no, the cmpxchg instruction's behavior is: if the comparison is equal, then the memory is set to the value in the source operand (EDI here). The RAX is not modified in this case. If the comparison is not equal, then the memory's value is loaded into RAX. + +In the test case, the initial RAX is 0x1234567812345678 (so EAX is 0x12345678). The memory is 0x12345678. So the comparison is equal. Therefore, RAX should remain as 0x1234567812345678. However, in QEMU, the user is seeing RAX being set to 0x12345678. That suggests that QEMU is zeroing the upper 32 bits of RAX when the operand size is 32 bits. On real hardware, when using a 32-bit cmpxchg, the upper 32 bits of RAX (when in 64-bit mode) should be zeroed. Wait, no. Wait, in 64-bit mode, when you perform a 32-bit operation (like cmpxchgl), the upper 32 bits of RAX are cleared. For example, if you do a 32-bit mov to EAX, the upper 32 bits of RAX become zero. Similarly, cmpxchg with 32-bit operand size would cause the RAX to be treated as EAX. So when the instruction is executed, even if the comparison is successful, the upper 32 bits of RAX (the part beyond EAX) are zeroed. Wait, but in the test case, the user's initial RAX is 0x1234567812345678. If the cmpxchg is 32-bit, then after the instruction, RAX should be 0x0000000012345678. But the user says that on real hardware, RAX remains as 0x1234567812345678. That's conflicting with what I thought. + +Wait, maybe I'm mixing up the behavior. Let me check the Intel manual. + +In the Intel Software Developer's Manual, Volume 2, instruction CMPXCHG. For the 32-bit operand size in 64-bit mode: when the comparison is equal, the source operand (EDI) is stored in the destination (memory). The RAX register's lower 32 bits (EAX) are not changed. However, in 64-bit mode, when a 32-bit instruction is executed, the upper 32 bits of the RAX register are zeroed. Wait, yes! For example, if you do a 32-bit operation on EAX, the upper 32 bits of RAX are cleared. So if you have RAX = 0x1234567887654321 and you perform a 32-bit operation on EAX, then EAX is modified and the upper 32 bits become zero. However, in the case of the cmpxchg instruction where the comparison is equal, the RAX is not modified. Wait, no. If the comparison is equal, the RAX is not modified. But the operand size is 32 bits. Wait, but the instruction is cmpxchg with a 32-bit operand size. So, in 64-bit mode, if you use cmpxchgl (32-bit operand size), then during execution, the comparison is between EAX and the memory. If equal, the memory is updated. However, the RAX register is not modified. However, in 64-bit mode, when you perform a 32-bit operation, the upper 32 bits of RAX are zeroed. Wait, but this zeroing only happens when the 32-bit operation writes to EAX. For example, if you do a mov eax, 0x1234, then RAX becomes 0x000000001234. However, if the instruction does not write to EAX, then the upper bits remain. + +In the case of cmpxchg with 32-bit operand size: when the comparison is equal, the instruction does not write to EAX. Therefore, the upper 32 bits of RAX should remain as they were. But according to the user's test, on real hardware, RAX remains as 0x1234567812345678. However, in QEMU, RAX becomes 0x12345678. That suggests that QEMU is zeroing the upper 32 bits of RAX when the operand size is 32 bits, even though the instruction didn't modify EAX. + +But according to the Intel manual, when a 32-bit instruction is executed in 64-bit mode, and the instruction does not modify the lower 32 bits (EAX), then the upper 32 bits are not zeroed. For example, if you have an instruction that doesn't touch EAX, like a 32-bit add that doesn't affect EAX (but that's not possible?), but in the case of cmpxchg where the comparison is equal, the EAX is not modified. Therefore, the upper 32 bits of RAX should remain as they were. Therefore, the correct RAX after the instruction would still be 0x1234567812345678. But QEMU is zeroing the upper part, leading to RAX being 0x0000000012345678. + +So this is a discrepancy in QEMU's TCG implementation. The problem is that QEMU's TCG is not preserving the upper 32 bits of RAX when a 32-bit cmpxchg is executed and the comparison is successful. This suggests that the TCG code for cmpxchg is incorrectly zeroing RAX when it shouldn't. + +The category here is an instruction-related issue because it's about the incorrect emulation of a specific instruction (cmpxchg) in QEMU. The problem is not with syscalls or runtime environment, but with how the instruction is translated or executed in TCG. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7257c7ed2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1916269 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU's TCG mode when using the Nehalem CPU model. The issue is that executing the SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction causes an FPU exception. The problem is that in the code, when the TS (Task Switched) bit is set, QEMU raises an exception for MMX/SSE operations. But according to the Intel manual, CRC32 should work regardless of the TS bit. + +So, the code in translate.c is checking the TS bit and raising an exception if it's set. But the CRC32 instruction is supposed to work even when the FPU is disabled. That means the code in QEMU is incorrectly handling the CRC32 instruction here. The bug is about an incorrect handling of a specific instruction (CRC32) in the TCG translation process. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is with the instruction (CRC32) not being handled correctly, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1918026 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1918026 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fda738582 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1918026 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU's RISC-V simulation related to AMOs (Atomic Memory Operations). Specifically, they mention that 32-bit AMOs like amomaxu.w and amomax.w are not working correctly. The test cases show that when using these instructions, the expected values aren't being stored or retrieved properly. For example, after calling test with a value of -11, the value at the memory location changes from -7 to -11, which shouldn't happen according to their expectations. + +The user suspects that the issue is in the code where trans_amo<op>_w is using tcg_gen_atomic_fetch_<op>_tl instead of tcg_gen_atomic_fetch_<op>_i32. The functions in question are part of QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) for handling atomic operations. The suffixes _tl and _i32 likely refer to different data sizes. Since the AMO is 32-bit, using the wrong function (maybe one meant for 64-bit operations) could lead to incorrect handling of the data size, causing the atomic operations to read or write the wrong number of bytes. This would explain why the tests are failing—because the atomic operation isn't properly treating the data as 32-bit integers. + +In QEMU, AMOs need to correctly handle the size of the data. If the code for 32-bit AMOs is using a function intended for target_long (which might be 64-bit on RISC-V64), that would cause the 32-bit operations to be misaligned or improperly sized. This would result in incorrect values being stored or loaded. The problem isn't with the syscall or runtime environment, but with the specific instruction's implementation. So the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..21b543f73 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1922887 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the Thumb32 STR instruction decoding. They provided the machine code and the decoding logic according to the ASL (Arm Software License). The key point is that when Rn is 1111, the instruction should be undefined, leading to a SEGILL signal. However, QEMU isn't checking this correctly. + +So, the problem is about the correct decoding of an instruction. The issue is that QEMU doesn't handle this specific case where Rn is 1111, which should result in an undefined instruction. Since the problem is with the instruction decoding logic, it's an instruction-related bug. The user is pointing out that the instruction isn't being flagged as undefined when it should be. Therefore, the category here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ccb5eb77d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1925512 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about the BLX instruction in ARMv7 Thumb mode, specifically the T2 encoding. They mention that when H is 1, the instruction should be UNDEFINED according to the manual, but QEMU's trans_BLX_i function doesn't check that. + +So, the issue here is that QEMU is not correctly handling a condition that should make the instruction undefined. The problem is in the translation of the BLX instruction, which is part of the instruction decoding or execution. Since it's about the instruction's behavior and the emulator not enforcing the correct UNDEFINED condition, this seems like an instruction-related bug. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is about the instruction's handling, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926202 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926202 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f84198d33 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926202 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with qemu-user crashing when running certain PowerPC (ppc) binaries. The error message they get is "illegal hardware instruction (core dumped)" which points to some kind of invalid instruction being executed. + +The setup involves QEMU version 6.0.0-rc5, statically built, and the problem seems related to glibc in specific CentOS versions. They provided a Dockerfile to reproduce the issue, and when they run the static binary with qemu-ppc-static, it crashes with signal 4, which is SIGILL, indicating an illegal instruction. + +Now, looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The key here is the "illegal hardware instruction" part. That suggests that QEMU is trying to execute an instruction that isn't supported, which would fall under the 'instruction' category. + +Syscall would involve system calls not working correctly, but the error here isn't about a system call failing. Runtime is for other runtime errors, but the specific mention of illegal instruction points more towards an instruction-related issue. So the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..18c6689ca --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1926759 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the WFI instruction in QEMU. The problem is that when executing the WFI instruction (with bytecode 0xe320f003), QEMU crashes with an unhandled CPU exception. The error message mentions an exception 0x10001 and some register states. The user notes that WFI is supposed to put the CPU into a low-power state waiting for an interrupt, so the exception seems incorrect. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The instruction category is for bugs related to specific CPU instructions. Since the issue here is directly about the WFI instruction not being handled properly by QEMU, causing an exception, this seems like an instruction-related problem. The syscall category is for system calls, which are software interrupts to the kernel, but here the problem is with a machine instruction. Runtime errors are other runtime issues not fitting into the other categories. Since the problem is specifically with the execution of the WFI instruction, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1941 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1941 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2be0eadf2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1941 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU 8.0.4 having issues with VSX vector float to integer conversions when there are NaN values. The problem is that the conversion instructions are not returning the expected results. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug seems to be related to specific CPU instructions (like xvcvspsxws, etc.) not being emulated correctly. The issue isn't with a system call, since those are more about kernel interactions. It's also not a general runtime error, but specifically about the instruction emulation in QEMU. + +The user mentioned that the problem occurs when the source vector has NaNs, leading to incorrect conversions. The test results show that QEMU 8.0.4 handles these cases differently than version 6.2.0. Since the problem is tied directly to how the emulator handles these specific instructions, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1955 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1955 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c5675d90f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1955 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU and needs to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem described is about the PowerPC instruction 'mffsl' not being emulated on POWER8. The issue arises because the GNU libc's feenableexcept() function uses this instruction, which isn't emulated in QEMU, leading to a SIGILL when running under emulation. The user mentions that on hardware POWER8, the program works because 'mffsl' is treated as 'mffs', but QEMU doesn't handle it, causing a crash. + +Looking at the categories: 'instruction' is for faulty instructions described in the bug. Since the core issue is that QEMU doesn't emulate the 'mffsl' instruction correctly, this directly relates to an instruction-level problem. The other categories like syscall or runtime don't fit here. The problem isn't about a system call or runtime environment but about the specific instruction emulation in QEMU. So the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b7d25c39 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/1967248 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's tackle this problem. The user is experiencing a core dump when running an ARM 32-bit binary in QEMU's user mode, but when debugging with GDB, it exits normally. They mentioned that QEMU isn't correctly translating the BKPT instruction into a SIGTRAP signal. + +First, I need to recall what BKPT does. On ARM, BKPT is a breakpoint instruction that triggers a debug exception, which should be caught by the debugger or the emulator. In QEMU, when running in user mode, it should simulate this by sending a SIGTRAP signal to the guest program. + +The user provided the disassembly snippet with a BKPT instruction at address 0xa608. When the program hits BKPT, QEMU should handle it by generating a SIGTRAP. However, the issue is that QEMU isn't doing this correctly, leading to a core dump. But when using GDB to remote-debug, it works normally. That suggests that when GDB is attached, it's handling the BKPT properly, perhaps because GDB intercepts the SIGTRAP and manages it as a breakpoint, allowing the program to exit normally. + +The core dump is likely happening because the SIGTRAP isn't being handled correctly by QEMU. If the BKPT isn't converted into a SIGTRAP, the program might be in an unexpected state, leading to a crash. The user also mentioned a fixed bug related to this, but the problem persists, which could indicate a residual issue or a different underlying cause. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem is directly related to the handling of the BKPT instruction. Since the instruction's behavior in QEMU is incorrect, it's an issue with the instruction emulation. The core dump arises because the instruction isn't being processed as expected, leading to an uncaught signal (SIGTRAP) or an invalid operation. Therefore, this should be classified under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..41003bebf --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2078 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that Qemu crashes with a SIGFPE when certain trapping arithmetic operations are performed on the m68k target. They provided a C program and some assembly code as examples. + +First, I need to figure out what's causing the crash. The problem occurs when the guest performs an arithmetic operation that traps. The SIGFPE is a floating-point exception, but in this case, it's related to integer division, specifically when dividing INT_MIN by -1. That would cause an overflow because in two's complement, that's undefined behavior in C and would trigger a trap on some architectures. + +Looking at the example code: when you divide INT_MIN by -1, it's supposed to overflow. On the m68k, this would generate a trap. The question is whether Qemu is handling that trap correctly. Since Qemu is crashing with SIGFPE, it's possible that the emulator isn't properly handling the exception generated by the guest's arithmetic operation. + +The user mentioned that this is specific to the m68k target. The assembly code provided uses 'divsl.l' which is a signed division instruction. If the division causes an overflow (like dividing INT_MIN by -1), the m68k would raise an exception. Qemu is supposed to emulate that exception handling, but instead, it's crashing. + +Now, looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The problem is related to how Qemu handles a specific instruction (divsl.l) that causes an exception. The crash occurs when executing this instruction, so the issue is likely in the instruction emulation code. Therefore, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..92d834c1d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2083 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is reporting a problem with the AArch64 SME SMOPA (4-way) outer product instruction. They provided a Python example that shows the expected result, but when they run their assembly code using QEMU, the output is incorrect. + +First, I need to understand what the SMOPA instruction does. According to the spec link they provided, SMOPA is for signed integer sum of outer products and accumulate. The Python example seems to compute a matrix multiplication where each element C[row][col] is the sum of products of elements from A and B, with some indexing. The assembly code is supposed to replicate this using SME instructions. + +Looking at the assembly code in foo.S, they're setting up vectors A and B using the index and add instructions. Then they use smopa to compute the outer product and accumulate into the tile register za0. After that, they read from the tile and store the results into memory. + +The problem is that when they run this code under QEMU, the output doesn't match the Python example. The expected output has four rows with specific numbers, but the actual output from QEMU shows some correct values (like 110, 478, etc.) but others are zeroed out. For example, the second row is all zeros, and the fourth row is also zeros. This suggests that the SMOPA instruction isn't computing all the required elements correctly in QEMU. + +Since the issue only occurs when running under QEMU, and the code works as expected in the Python simulation, the problem is likely in how QEMU emulates the SMOPA instruction. The user is using QEMU with SME enabled (-cpu max,sme128=on), so the bug is probably in QEMU's implementation of the SME SMOPA instruction. The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since this is about an instruction's incorrect behavior in QEMU, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ce7c53497 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2089 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the QEMU aarch64 emulator where the `sqshrn` instruction isn't emulated correctly. The problem is that specific tests fail in QEMU but pass on real hardware. The tests in question are related to signed saturating shift right narrow operations for 16x1. + +First, I need to understand what `sqshrn` does. From what I remember, in ARM architecture, `SQRSHRN` is the Signed Rounding Shift Right Narrow instruction. It shifts the elements of a vector register by a specified number of bits, rounds the result, and then narrows the data type. The 'saturating' part would mean that if the result exceeds the range of the target data type, it's clamped to the maximum or minimum value. + +The test cases are expecting certain results when this instruction is executed. On real hardware, it works as expected, but QEMU produces different results. The failures observed are in the expected equality checks where the actual result (`res1` and `res3`) doesn't match the expected 128-bit values. + +The key here is that the problem is specific to the emulation of the `sqshrn` instruction in QEMU. The user mentioned that building and running the inline_asm_tests with qemu-aarch64 leads to two failures. The error messages show that the values obtained in QEMU are not matching those from the actual hardware. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue is directly related to the incorrect emulation of a specific ARM instruction (`sqshrn`), the problem lies in how QEMU is handling that instruction. There's no mention of system calls or runtime errors outside of instruction execution. Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2122 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2122 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6d0adad7c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2122 @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a segfault with qemu-user-static when running ldconfig on an x86_64 host with an arm64 client. The steps involve using an Ubuntu Jammy arm64 rootfs, mounting it with the host's /proc, and then doing an apt uninstall that triggers libc-bin processing. + +First, I need to figure out which category this falls into: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +A segfault usually indicates an invalid memory access, which could be due to a faulty instruction if the CPU emulation is wrong. But since it's qemu-user-static, which is for running binaries compiled for a different architecture, maybe there's an issue with how the system calls are being handled. However, the problem occurs during ldconfig execution, which is part of the dynamic linker setup. + +Wait, when using qemu-user, it intercepts syscalls and emulates them. If there's a problem with how a specific syscall is being handled for arm64 on an x86_64 host, that could cause a segfault. But the error happens during libc-bin processing. Maybe the dynamic linker (ld.so) is being executed, and QEMU is having trouble with the instructions specific to arm64. But the user is running the arm64 binary on the host via qemu-user-static, so the host's CPU is x86_64. So QEMU is emulating the arm64 instructions. If there's an instruction that QEMU doesn't handle correctly, that could lead to a segfault. + +But the problem is triggered when ldconfig is run. Ldconfig is part of the libc-bin package, so during an apt uninstall, it might be running ldconfig to update the cache. The segfault occurs in qemu during this process. + +Is it an instruction error? Maybe if there's an unhandled or incorrect translation of an arm64 instruction to x86_64. Or maybe a syscall that's not properly emulated. For example, if ldconfig is making a system call that QEMU doesn't handle correctly in user-mode emulation. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. The user says "qemu segfault", so it's a crash in QEMU itself. To determine the cause: if it's due to executing an incorrect instruction (like a missing or wrong translation), that's an instruction issue. If it's because a syscall is being passed to the host and handled incorrectly, that's a syscall issue. Runtime errors are other issues during execution, perhaps memory management or other runtime problems. + +In qemu-user-static, syscalls from the target architecture (arm64) are translated to the host's syscalls (x86_64). If there's a bug in how a particular syscall is translated or handled, that could lead to a segfault. But if the segfault is in QEMU's code while processing the target binary's instructions, that would be an instruction problem. + +Alternatively, maybe during the execution of ldconfig, which is a native arm64 binary, QEMU hits a case where it doesn't properly emulate a certain instruction, leading to a segfault. For example, if the binary uses an ARM instruction that QEMU doesn't support or has a bug in its emulation. + +Since the problem occurs when processing libc-bin, which involves dynamic linking, it's possible that the dynamic linker is making some complex system calls or using specific instructions that QEMU isn't handling right. However, without more details on the exact cause (like a stack trace), it's a bit tricky. + +But given the options, if the segfault is due to QEMU not handling a specific instruction correctly, it's "instruction". If it's about syscall handling, then "syscall". Otherwise, "runtime". + +Given that the problem is during execution of ldconfig, which is part of the C library's setup, it's possible that the binary is using some architecture-specific instructions that QEMU isn't emulating properly. Therefore, the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e75ece3da --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2136 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with LSX vector instructions on a LoongArch host. They mentioned that when running a test program through QEMU, the results are incorrect. The problem seems to be that certain vector operations are not producing the expected zeros, instead giving values like 0xFFFFFFFF or 0x2F2F2F2F. The key point here is that the same code runs correctly on the LoongArch host itself and on x86_64 with QEMU, which suggests that the issue is specific to the QEMU LoongArch user mode on the same host. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. The problem is related to the execution of LSX instructions (which are vector instructions) in QEMU. Since it's about the instructions not being emulated correctly, the category should be "instruction". The fact that the error occurs in the emulation of specific instructions (LSX) points to an instruction-level problem in QEMU's implementation. It's not a syscall issue because the problem is in the vector operations, not system calls. Also, runtime errors are more general, but here the issue is directly tied to instruction execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7695a26f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2175 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug related to the BLSI instruction's CF flag computation in QEMU. The problem seems to be that when running the example code natively versus under QEMU, the return codes differ, which suggests a discrepancy in how the BLSI instruction affects the flags, specifically the Carry Flag (CF). + +First, I need to recall what the BLSI instruction does. BLSI stands for Bit Manipulation Instruction Set, specifically Base Level Set Isolated. From what I remember, BLSI isolates the rightmost set bit in a register. For example, if a register has the value 0x12 (binary 10010), BLSI would set the result to 0x2 (the rightmost set bit). The CF flag is part of the processor's flags register, which is modified by arithmetic operations. However, BLSI is a bit manipulation instruction, so I need to check whether it's supposed to affect the CF flag. + +Looking into the Intel documentation for BLSI (which I might be recalling from memory), I think that BLSI does not affect the CF flag. However, the user is suggesting that in their test case, the CF flag is being set incorrectly by QEMU's emulation of BLSI. The test case involves setting up certain flags with 'pushf' and 'popf', then executing BLSI, then checking the flags again. The difference in the return codes between native execution and QEMU suggests that QEMU's implementation of the BLSI instruction's effect on the flags (specifically CF) is incorrect. + +The user mentions that a previous issue (#1370) was related but not fully fixed. The key here is that the problem is about the CF flag computation during the BLSI instruction. Since the BLSI instruction's handling in QEMU is causing the wrong CF flag value, this would be an error in how the instruction is implemented in QEMU. Therefore, the category for this bug would be "instruction", as it's a specific instruction's behavior being incorrect in the emulator. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5755b00a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2203 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user mentioned a bug report about RISC-V RVV fractional LMUL check being wrong in QEMU. The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what LMUL is. LMUL stands for "Vector Length Multiplier" in RISC-V Vector Extension. It determines how the vector registers are used. Fractional LMULs would be values like 1/8, 1/4, etc., which affect the number of elements processed per vector operation. + +The bug is about a check on fractional LMUL being incorrect. So, when the QEMU emulator processes vector instructions, it might not correctly handle the LMUL values, leading to incorrect behavior. Since this relates to how instructions are executed, specifically vector instructions, it's likely an instruction-related issue. + +Syscall errors are about system calls made by the guest OS to the host, which doesn't seem relevant here. Runtime errors are general issues during execution, but the problem here is more about instruction execution specifics. So the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2248 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2248 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7970fa4a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2248 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU when running AArch64 code. The problem is that the execution gives an incorrect result. The code in question is written in assembly and C. The issue seems to be between versions 8.1.5 and 8.2.1 of QEMU. + +Looking at the assembly code, there's a function callme that does some comparisons and bit manipulations. The key part is the sxtb instruction: sxtb x0, w13. The expected result is -1, but QEMU is returning 0x3fffffffffffffff. + +Hmm, sxtb is Sign Extend Byte. So it takes the 8 bits from w13, sign-extends them to 64 bits, and puts it into x0. If the value in w13 is 0xff, then sign-extending that would give 0xffffffffffffffff, which is -1 in two's complement. But the user says the result is 0x3fffffffffffffff, which is 0x3f...f, which is 46 bits of 1s but not the full 64. Wait, 0x3fffffffffffffff is 63 bits set, but the 64th bit (the sign bit) is 0. So that's a positive number, not -1. + +So why is QEMU producing this value? The problem is likely in how QEMU emulates the sxtb instruction. The correct result of sxtb on 0xff should be 0xffffffffffffffff (-1), but QEMU is returning 0x3fffffffffffffff. That suggests that the sign extension isn't being applied correctly. Maybe QEMU is only extending to 32 bits first or something else. + +The user mentioned that in QEMU versions before 8.2.1, it worked correctly, so this is a regression. The issue is in the instruction emulation. The other possibilities are syscall or runtime errors, but here the problem is with the execution of the sxtb instruction itself. Therefore, this is an instruction-related bug in QEMU's AArch64 emulation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b9a039f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2302 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is having an issue where qemu-x86_64 crashes with an "Illegal Instruction" error when running SPEC CPU 2017 benchmarks, specifically Perlbench. They provided some logs from using the -d in_asm flag. + +Looking at the additional information, the crash happens after executing a series of x86_64 instructions. The key line is the "qemu: uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction) - core dumped". Signal 4 is SIGILL, which is indeed related to an illegal instruction. The instructions listed before the crash include standard x86-64 operations like movq and jmp. The last instruction before the crash is "62 .byte 0x62". Wait, 0x62 is the hex value for 'b' in ASCII. That's odd because 0x62 isn't a valid x86 instruction. That byte might be part of some data or maybe an error in the binary. + +But why is QEMU encountering an illegal instruction here? The user is running compiled SPEC benchmarks, so maybe the code generated by the compiler includes an invalid instruction. However, the problem occurs under QEMU but not on native hardware? Or perhaps QEMU is misconfiguring or missing support for certain instructions. Wait, the user is running on different machines, but two out of three still crash. So maybe the issue isn't the host machine's CPU but QEMU itself. If the compiled Perlbench includes instructions that QEMU can't emulate, that would cause an illegal instruction. For example, if the code uses AVX or some other extension not properly handled by QEMU's emulation, but in this case, the instruction is just 0x62, which isn't a standard instruction. + +Another angle: the binary might be corrupted or compiled with incorrect flags. However, the user says they compiled it as a basic Perlbench binary, but maybe the compiler optimization flags are causing issues. But the problem is consistent across different machines, suggesting the issue is in QEMU's handling of the instruction. Alternatively, the user might be running a 32-bit binary on a QEMU that's expecting 64-bit, but the error is about an illegal instruction, not a segmentation fault or something else. + +The key here is the presence of an invalid instruction (0x62) that QEMU doesn't recognize. So this would fall under the 'instruction' category because the problem is that QEMU is encountering an instruction it can't execute, leading to a crash. The 'instruction' category is for when the bug is due to a faulty instruction being processed by QEMU. The 'runtime' category is for other runtime errors, and 'syscall' is for system call issues. Since the error is directly about an illegal instruction, the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..014f29ee7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2317 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the SH4 architecture's ADDV instruction. The problem is that the ADDV opcode isn't being emulated correctly. + +The description says that according to the documentation, ADDV Rm, Rn should add Rn and Rm, store the result in Rn, and set the T flag on overflow. But QEMU is doing Rn + Rm and storing the result in Rm instead, which is the opposite of what it should be. + +The steps to reproduce include a C program that uses inline assembly. On real hardware, the output shows that 'a' (r8) becomes 0x80000000, which is the correct result of adding 0x7fffffff and 1. However, in QEMU, 'a' remains 0x7fffffff and 'b' (r9) becomes 0x80000000. That suggests that QEMU is writing the result to Rm (r9) instead of Rn (r8). + +The key here is the instruction's operand order. The ADDV instruction's syntax is ADDV Rm, Rn. The first operand is Rm, the second is Rn. The correct behavior is Rn = Rn + Rm, but QEMU is doing Rm = Rn + Rm. So the emulation is swapping the destination register. + +This is definitely an issue with the instruction emulation. The QEMU code for SH4's ADDV is not following the documented behavior. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment; it's specifically about how the ADDV instruction is handled. So the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c52fe69a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2318 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the SH4 SUBV instruction in QEMU. The problem is that the underflow isn't being detected properly. The test case shows that on real hardware, the 'c' variable gets 0x1, but in QEMU it's 0x0. + +The SUBV instruction subtracts Rm from Rn and stores the result in Rn. If there's an underflow, the T bit is set. The MOVt instruction moves the T bit to the destination register. So, in the test case, after SUBV, if there's an underflow, the T bit should be set, making 'c' 1. Otherwise, it's 0. + +In the real hardware, the output is c=0x1, meaning the underflow was detected. But QEMU gives c=0x0, meaning it didn't detect the underflow. So the problem is that QEMU's emulation of the SUBV instruction isn't setting the T bit correctly when an underflow occurs. + +This is definitely an issue with the instruction emulation. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since it's a specific instruction's behavior that's incorrect, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f0ddb7a45 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2319 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's SPARC 32-bit SDIV instruction. The problem is when using a negative divisor, it gives the wrong result. They mentioned a typo in helper_sdiv() in the helper.c file. The example uses specific values in registers and the SDIV operation, which is supposed to return 1 but returns 0 instead. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug seems to be related to the SDIV instruction's implementation. The issue is in the helper function for the SDIV operation, which is part of the instruction emulation. The typo causes the divisor to be treated as unsigned, leading to incorrect division results. Since SDIV is an instruction in SPARC, and the bug is in how that instruction is handled, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall or a general runtime error, but specifically an error in the instruction's execution. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2336 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2336 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2ea3f3214 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2336 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this QEMU bug report. The user mentioned that when running qemu-x86_64 on LoongArch, they get a "Bus error (core dumped)". The problem started after a specific commit. The logs are provided, but I can't see them directly. + +First, I need to recall what a Bus error typically indicates. Bus errors usually relate to invalid memory access, like misaligned addresses or hardware-specific issues. Since this is happening on LoongArch when running x86_64 code via QEMU, it might be related to how QEMU is handling the instruction translation or memory emulation. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for faulty instructions described in the report. The syscall is for syscall-related errors, and runtime is for other runtime issues. + +The user's issue occurs when executing the QEMU-built x86_64 emulator on LoongArch. The error is a Bus error, which points to a problem during the execution of instructions, possibly due to incorrect instruction translation or memory handling by QEMU. Since the problem is tied to a specific commit in QEMU's code, it's likely an issue with how QEMU is translating or executing the x86_64 instructions on LoongArch. This seems like an instruction-related problem because it's about the execution of instructions leading to a crash. However, Bus errors can also be caused by memory issues, which might fall under runtime. But given the context of QEMU's instruction emulation and the commit reference, instruction seems more appropriate here. The user also mentioned the -d in_asm,op,out_asm options in the logs, which relate to instruction translation. Therefore, the category is likely "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..36a13bfa8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2371 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's handling of the RISC-V froundnx.h instruction. The problem is about NaN-boxing when the instruction is executed. The issue is that when an incorrectly NaN-boxed value is passed to froundnx.h, QEMU returns 0 instead of the canonical NaN. The code example shows a helper function in QEMU's source code where there's a typo: check_nanbox_s is used instead of check_nanbox_h. + +So, the categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug is in the execution of a specific instruction (froundnx.h), which is part of the RISC-V ISA. The problem arises from how the instruction is implemented in QEMU, specifically in the helper function for that instruction. Since it's directly related to the instruction's execution, the correct category should be "instruction". + +Syscall would be for system call related issues, and runtime is for other runtime errors not specifically instruction-related. Here, the instruction's implementation is faulty, so instruction is the right choice. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bce174ccc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2372 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's AArch64 implementation, specifically the UMOPA/UMOPS (4-way) instruction. The problem is in the helper function for matrix multiplication. + +The helper function is supposed to multiply two matrices and accumulate the result. The source registers have 16-bit elements, and the destination has 64-bit elements. The issue is that the elements aren't being zero-extended to 64 bits before multiplication. The current code uses uint16_t for NTYPE and MTYPE, but when they're multiplied, they're treated as int32_t, leading to incorrect results. + +The user provided a test case that shows the wrong output when run under QEMU. The problem is in the helper function's data type handling, which is part of the instruction's emulation. Since the bug is in the execution of the instruction (specifically, how the UMOPA instruction is handled), this would fall under an instruction-related issue. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since this is about the correct execution of a specific CPU instruction (UMOPA), the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..64b5b78c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2373 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The problem is about the AArch64 FMOPA/FMOPS instructions, specifically the widening variant. The issue is that the current implementation only considers the FZ flag instead of the FZ16 flag when converting 16-bit floating-point values. This leads to incorrect results when the FZ16 flag is set, which should cause denormalized values to be zeroed. + +The steps to reproduce involve compiling a test program and running it under QEMU with SME256 enabled. The expected output isn't achieved because QEMU's emulation of the FMOPA instruction is incorrect in handling the FZ16 flag. The user mentions that the problem is part of QEMU. + +Looking at the possible categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is in the execution of a specific machine instruction (FMOPA) and how QEMU emulates that instruction, it's an instruction-level issue. The problem isn't with a syscall or general runtime behavior but specifically with the correct emulation of a CPU instruction. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..39ab86b12 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2374 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's AArch64 FMOPA/FMOPS instructions. The problem is that the 32-bit variant isn't generating default NaNs correctly because an invalid float_status pointer is being passed. The code example shows that in the helper function, they're using 'vst' instead of the local 'fpst' which was set up with the default NaN mode. + +So, the key here is that the issue is with the execution of a specific machine instruction (FMOPA) in the QEMU emulator. The bug is in how the instruction is implemented in the code, leading to incorrect floating-point handling. The steps to reproduce involve compiling a test case and running it under QEMU, which shows that the problem occurs during the emulation of that instruction. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the bug is directly related to the incorrect emulation of a specific CPU instruction (FMOPA), this falls under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall issue because it's about CPU instruction execution, and not a general runtime error but specifically an instruction implementation error. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d243cebb0 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2375 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The issue is about the AArch64 FJCVTZS instruction. The problem is that the helper function for this instruction doesn't properly check the denormalized case, leading to an incorrect Z flag value. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the given categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug report describes a specific instruction (FJCVTZS) and its helper function in QEMU's code. The issue is with the handling of that instruction's execution, specifically in the conversion process when dealing with denormalized numbers. + +The helper function is part of the QEMU code that emulates the behavior of the FJCVTZS instruction. Since the problem is directly related to the execution of this instruction and how it's emulated, it falls under the "instruction" category. The error isn't about a system call or a runtime environment issue but rather the correct implementation of a CPU instruction in the emulator. + +The steps to reproduce involve using inline assembly to trigger the instruction, which further points to the bug being in the instruction's handling. The fix would involve modifying the helper function for the instruction, which is part of QEMU's instruction emulation. Therefore, the correct category here is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a69fc70f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2376 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. The problem is with the ARM VCMLA.f16 and VCMLA.f32 instructions. The issue is that these instructions are modifying an irrelevant vector register due to an out-of-bounds error. The helper functions in the code aren't correctly checking the number of elements they modify. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce, they wrote a test program that uses specific ARM assembly instructions. When run under QEMU, it shows incorrect values in register D31, which shouldn't be touched. The problem is in how the instruction is emulated in QEMU's code. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the bug is in the emulation of a specific CPU instruction (VCMLA), and the issue arises from how that instruction is handled in the QEMU code, this should be classified as an "instruction" bug. It's not a syscall issue because it's about CPU instruction emulation. Runtime is for other runtime errors, but here the core problem is the instruction's incorrect implementation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2386 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8f329e65a --- /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 diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d923c0822 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2419 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU. The issue is with the ldapr_stlr_i instructions. The problem is that the imm field is supposed to be a signed 9-bit value (s9) but was defined as 9, which is unsigned. This causes incorrect sign extension when the immediate is negative. The result is that negative immediates are calculated wrong, leading to possible undefined behavior or crashes in QEMU. + +So, the bug is related to how the instruction's immediate field is handled. The fix involved changing the definition from 9 to s9, which affects how the value is extended. The problem occurs during the execution of the instruction, specifically when decoding or executing the instruction with a negative immediate. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is with the instruction's encoding/decoding and how the immediate is processed, this is an instruction-related bug. The other category 'syscall' is about system calls, which isn't the case here. 'Runtime' is for other runtime errors, but the problem is specifically in the instruction's handling. So the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2edff4bf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2422 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to the `vsetvli` instruction not setting the `vill` register when it should. According to the RISC-V Vector spec, when a reserved `vsetvli` instruction is used (like when changing VLMAX), implementations may set `vill`. The test case provided shows that QEMU doesn't set `vill` in such cases, leading to a failed assertion. + +So, the problem is with the execution of the `vsetvli` instruction. The bug is specifically about how QEMU handles this instruction, not a syscall or runtime environment issue. The issue is in the instruction's implementation within QEMU. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9db4e8476 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2474 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what's going on here. The user is reporting an issue with the QEMU translation of the x86 instruction vpgatherqq. Specifically, when the XMM4 register is involved, the offset in the generated code is incorrect. + +Looking at the problem steps, they provided an example where the offset for XMM4 is calculated as 0x310 instead of the expected 0x450. They mention that the XMM registers are in a continuous structure called CPUArchState, so their offsets should form an arithmetic sequence with a common difference of 0x40. So XMM2 would be at 0x3d0, XMM3 at 0x410, XMM4 at 0x450, etc. But in the output, XMM4 is at 0x310, which is way off. + +The user tracked the issue to a part of the QEMU code in translate.c, specifically in the gen_lea_modrm_0 function. The code there checks if the index is 4 and sets it to -1, which means "no index". They suspect this is causing the incorrect offset calculation. + +So, the problem is in how QEMU's translator is handling the MODRM/SIB encoding for the vpgatherqq instruction when XMM4 is used. The code in gen_lea_modrm_0 is treating index 4 as invalid, which leads to incorrect address calculation. This seems to be an error in the instruction decoding or translation process within QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) for x86. + +Since the issue is directly related to the translation of the x86 instruction into QEMU's internal operations, and it's a mistake in the generated code due to incorrect handling of the register index, this would fall under an "instruction" bug category. The problem is with how QEMU translates the specific x86 instruction into its internal representation, leading to incorrect execution. It's not a runtime error in the traditional sense, nor a syscall issue. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8ab0150bb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2483 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with the m68k architecture in QEMU. The problem is with the JSR (Jump to Subroutine) instruction. They provided some assembly code and a description of what's happening. + +So, the code is moving the stack pointer (SP) into A1, then copying 0x68 bytes from A0 to A1. Then there's a loop that does this byte copy, decrementing D0 each time until it's zero. After that, the JSR (SP) is called. + +The user says that SP is 0x3bfc at the JSR. Normally, JSR (SP) would jump to the address in SP (so 0x3bfc) and push the return address onto the stack. But in QEMU, the return address is being placed at 0xb3f8 (which seems like a reversed byte order), and the PC ends up at 0x3bf8, executing the return address as code. That's causing issues. + +Hmm, the problem here seems to be with how the JSR instruction is being emulated. The JSR instruction on the m68k should push the return address (the address of the next instruction) onto the stack and then jump to the target address. But in this case, the stack pointer manipulation might be causing unexpected behavior because the code is using SP directly. + +The user mentions that the stack pointer is being used as the target address for JSR. If the code is modifying the stack pointer (like moving it to A1 and copying data to where SP points), then the JSR might be trying to jump to an address that's on the stack, but the way QEMU is handling the stack pointer during the JSR could be incorrect. + +The key issue here is that JSR is supposed to push the return address onto the stack. If the stack pointer isn't being handled correctly during this instruction, then the return address would be placed in the wrong location, leading to the PC jumping to an incorrect address. The user's example shows that the return address is at 0xb3f8 instead of 0x3bf8, which suggests an endianness issue or incorrect stack pointer adjustment. + +Since the problem is related to the execution of the JSR instruction and how the stack is being manipulated during its execution, this falls under an instruction-related bug. The QEMU emulator's m68k CPU implementation might have a mistake in how it handles the JSR instruction, particularly when the operand is the stack pointer itself. + +Therefore, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2485 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2485 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..668ee71df --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2485 @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The problem is that when a C program using getifaddrs is compiled with musl libc and run on certain big-endian architectures via QEMU, it hangs. The user says it works on real hardware but not in QEMU. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the bug occurs when using QEMU's user-mode emulation. The program hangs inside musl libc. Since musl is the C library, and the issue is specific to certain architectures (big-endian ones like m68k, ppc, etc.), maybe there's a problem with how QEMU handles certain instructions for those architectures. But why would it work on real hardware? + +If it's an instruction issue, maybe QEMU isn't correctly emulating a particular instruction that musl's code uses on those big-endian platforms. The program runs fine on actual hardware, so the code is correct there. But when emulated by QEMU, it hangs. That suggests QEMU's emulation of some instruction is flawed for those targets. + +Alternatively, could it be a syscall issue? The getifaddrs function involves system calls. But the problem is that the program hangs, which might indicate it's stuck in a loop or waiting for something, not necessarily a syscall error. Also, the user says it's linked with musl, so maybe musl is making a syscall that QEMU isn't handling properly. But the same binaries work on real hardware, so the syscall interface on real hardware is correct. QEMU's syscall emulation might be missing something for these architectures. + +Runtime errors usually refer to issues like memory management, threading, etc., but the problem here is more about emulation of the target environment. + +Looking at the references provided, like the Gentoo bug and the musl mailing list, they might point to QEMU's user-mode for those specific targets having issues. The musl libc is known to be more strict or different in its implementations, so maybe QEMU isn't correctly emulating some low-level behavior required by musl on those big-endian architectures. + +Since the problem is specific to certain architectures when emulated by QEMU, and the same code works on real hardware, this points towards QEMU's emulation of those specific instruction sets. So it's likely an instruction-related issue. But wait, if the problem is in the musl library's code when executed under QEMU, maybe the code generated for those architectures uses some instructions that QEMU doesn't handle correctly. For example, maybe some endianness-related instructions, or specific CPU features that QEMU isn't emulating properly for those targets. + +Therefore, the category would be "instruction" because it's about QEMU not correctly emulating the necessary instructions for those architectures, leading to the hang when musl's code runs. However, another angle is that it's a syscall issue if the hang is due to incorrect syscall handling. But since the same binaries work on real hardware, the syscalls are correct there, implying that QEMU's syscall emulation might be missing something. But syscall errors usually result in errors returned, not hangs. A hang suggests the program is stuck in an infinite loop or waiting for a syscall that's not completing, which could be due to incorrect emulation of the syscall's behavior or perhaps some instruction that's part of the syscall handling. + +But given that the problem is in the musl libc and specific to big-endian targets in QEMU, and considering that QEMU's user-mode emulation for those targets might not be fully handling certain instructions that musl relies on, the most likely category is "instruction". However, I'm not 100% sure. Another possibility is "runtime" if it's a general runtime issue in QEMU's emulation environment. But the fact that it's specific to certain architectures and the program hangs inside the libc function suggests an instruction-level problem. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..56a069ea8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2487 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU where it crashes with an error message pointing to the tcg_out_test function in the PPC TCG code. The problem occurs when running a simple x86_64 static executable using the qemu-x86_64 binary that's part of a ppc64 build. + +The error message says "code should not be reached" in the tcg_out_test function. The commit that was bisected as the culprit is about using TSTEQ/TSTNE instructions for testing low bits in the i386 target. The commit was supposed to optimize how certain tests are done, but it seems to have introduced an issue when this code is used in a cross-compilation scenario, like when building for ppc64 but running x86_64 code. + +The key here is that the TCG (Tiny Code Generator) for PowerPC (ppc) is handling code generation for x86_64 binaries. The error happens in the tcg_out_test function, which is part of the backend code generation for PPC. The problem arises because the code path that was added or modified in the commit (using TSTEQ/TSTNE) is leading to a situation where the PPC backend isn't handling a particular case, hence the assertion that "code should not be reached" is triggered. + +Since the issue is related to the code generation path for a specific target (PPC) when executing x86_64 code, and it's due to an instruction handling issue (specifically in the TCG backend), this would be classified under an "instruction" error. The problem is in how a certain instruction or code path is being translated or handled by the TCG for the PPC architecture, leading to an unexpected situation where the code path shouldn't exist. Therefore, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5e9ab8367 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2495 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to MMX instructions. The problem is about redundant REX prefixes causing invalid TCG code generation. They provided examples where changing the REX prefix from 49 to 4f leads to different memory offsets being used in the generated TCG code. For instance, in the first case, the offset is 0x270, and in the second, it's 0x2f0. The result is incorrect execution when running the code under QEMU. + +The key here is that the REX prefix is part of the x86-64 instruction encoding. The REX prefix modifies the instruction, but in some cases, parts of the REX prefix might be redundant. The user is saying that when QEMU lifts the MMX instructions (translating them to TCG intermediate code), it's handling the REX prefixes incorrectly. Specifically, the offset into the MMX register area is being adjusted based on the REX prefix, which shouldn't be the case because MMX registers are fixed and don't depend on REX prefixes. The REX prefix in MMX instructions might be allowed but is redundant, and QEMU's translator isn't handling that redundancy properly, leading to incorrect memory offsets when accessing the MMX registers. + +The issue is in the translation phase, where QEMU's translator (TCG) is generating incorrect code based on the redundant REX prefix. The problem isn't with the actual instruction execution at runtime in a general sense, but rather with how the instruction is translated into TCG. However, the categories provided are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The instruction category refers to a faulty instruction handling. Since the problem is that the instruction's translation is incorrect due to the REX prefix being mishandled, this would fall under the instruction category. The QEMU translator is emitting incorrect TCG when processing the instruction because it's not properly ignoring redundant REX prefixes in MMX instructions. So the bug is in how the instruction is translated, which is part of the instruction handling in QEMU. + +The runtime category is for other runtime errors, but this is specifically about instruction decoding/translation. The syscall category is irrelevant here. Therefore, the correct classification is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f4d6f82f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2497 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report is about the m68k FPU's FPIAR register not being implemented in QEMU. The problem arises when test code tries to write to the FPIAR register using an instruction like fmove and then reads it back, expecting the value to be there. But since QEMU doesn't implement this register, the read doesn't get the written value, causing a test failure. + +So, the user is asking to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the FPIAR register is part of the FPU, and the issue is with the implementation of a specific register. The test code uses the fmove instruction to interact with this register. Since the problem is that the register isn't implemented, when the instruction (fmove) is executed, it's not functioning as expected. + +The instruction category is for when a specific instruction is faulty. Here, the instruction (fmove) might be the vector through which the problem is observed, but the root cause is the missing register implementation. However, the classification options don't have a "register implementation" category. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Wait, maybe the problem is that the instruction is being executed incorrectly because the register isn't implemented. So, the instruction (fmove) is supposed to handle FPIAR, but since QEMU doesn't implement it, the instruction's behavior is wrong. Therefore, this would be an instruction-related bug. + +Alternatively, could it be a runtime error? Runtime errors are other errors that happen during execution. But the description here is about the instruction not handling the register correctly due to missing implementation. The syscall category is out because this isn't related to system calls. + +So, the most fitting category here is "instruction" because the issue is with the correct execution of the fmove instruction regarding the FPIAR register. The problem is that the instruction isn't properly emulating the register's behavior. Hence, the answer should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..75d359b21 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2498 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's look at this bug report. The user is talking about the m68k FPU's fmovem instruction handling in QEMU. The problem is that when multiple control registers are involved, the order in which they're read or written to memory is incorrect. The manual specifies that the control register should be first, then the status, then the instruction address register. But QEMU is doing it in reverse order. + +The provided code diff shows changes in the translate.c file, specifically in the gen_op_fmove_fcr function. The loops that handle the registers are being adjusted. The original code was iterating from i=2 down to 0, which would process the registers in reverse order. The fix changes the loop to iterate from i=2 to 0 but adjusts the mask shifting and checking to ensure the correct order. + +Since the issue is about the correct sequence of operations for the fmovem instruction, this is directly related to how the instruction is implemented in QEMU. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment but with the specific instruction's execution. Therefore, this falls under the 'instruction' category. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..af0e6925d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2499 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's m68k FPU emulation. The problem is that the fsave and frestore instructions are only allowed on the 68040, but according to the manual, they should work on 68020/68030 with an external FPU like the 68881/68882. The current QEMU code raises an exception for those CPUs. The provided patch changes the condition from checking for 68040 features to checking for FPU features. + +So, the core of the issue is that the instructions are being incorrectly disabled on CPUs that should support them when an FPU is present. The bug is about the execution of specific instructions (fsave/frestore) under certain CPU configurations. Since it's about the handling of machine instructions by the emulator, this falls under the "instruction" category. There's no mention of syscalls or runtime errors beyond instruction execution. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..da157bb2e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2500 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's m68k MMU implementation. Specifically, they mention that the 68030 has MMU instructions like `pmove` which aren't implemented in QEMU. The problem is that when `pmove` is used, which has the same encoding as an F-line instruction, QEMU generates an F-line exception instead of executing the intended MMU load/store. + +So, the core of the issue is that the instruction `pmove` isn't handled correctly. The bug is about an instruction that's missing in QEMU's implementation. The user is pointing out that the instruction exists on the real hardware (68030) but isn't emulated, leading to incorrect behavior. + +Looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem is about a specific instruction not being implemented, the correct category should be "instruction". The other categories don't fit here. It's not a syscall issue, and while it happens at runtime, the root cause is the missing instruction handling. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2504 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2504 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e6a5f65b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2504 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue where they're trying to run an x86_64 binary (like /bin/ls) using qemu-x86_64 on a LoongArch machine, but it's failing. The problem occurs when they chroot into an x86_64 rootfs. The error message in the log probably relates to QEMU not being able to execute the binary correctly. + +First, I need to figure out what kind of error this is. Since QEMU is an emulator, it should handle translating x86 instructions to LoongArch's architecture. If the error is about an instruction not being recognized or supported, that would fall under the 'instruction' category. But if the problem is with a system call (like missing syscalls or incorrect handling), then it's 'syscall'. + +However, the user mentioned that they're using qemu-x86_64, which is the user-space emulator. When you run a binary with qemu, it emulates the CPU instructions. If the error is during the execution of the binary, it's likely an instruction-related issue. For example, if QEMU can't translate an x86 instruction to LoongArch, that's an instruction problem. + +On the other hand, if the error is about missing libraries or permissions, that might be a runtime issue. But the user is chrooted into an x86_64 rootfs, so the libraries should be present. The error might be that QEMU isn't properly handling some instruction specific to the x86_64 architecture that's required by the binary. + +Looking at the log file (even though I can't see the actual content), common errors in such scenarios are "Exec format error" or segmentation faults. If it's an exec format error, that's usually because the kernel doesn't recognize the binary, but since QEMU is used, it should handle that. A segmentation fault might be due to incorrect emulation of instructions. + +Given that QEMU's role here is to emulate the CPU instructions, the error is most likely related to instruction emulation. Therefore, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2536 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2536 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4c8622cc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2536 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is asking to classify a bug report related to QEMU's dynamic translation of ARM instructions VFNMA and VFNMS. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to recall what each category means. The instruction category is for when a specific instruction is faulty. The syscall category is about system calls errors. Runtime is for other runtime issues. + +The bug report mentions dynamic translation issues with the ARM instructions VFNMA and VFNMS. Dynamic translation in QEMU refers to translating guest code to host code at runtime. If there's a problem with how these specific instructions are being translated or executed, that would be an issue with the instruction handling in QEMU. + +Since the problem is directly related to the translation of these specific ARM instructions, it's likely an instruction-related bug. There's no mention of system calls here, so it's not the syscall category. Runtime is a catch-all, but since the issue is about specific instructions, instruction is more precise. + +Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2fc96bd85 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2595 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out how to classify this bug report. The user says the problem is with the SDOT and UDOT instructions on ARM SVE when using QEMU with certain vector lengths. They tested it with the Arm Instruction Emulator and gem5, which gave correct results, but QEMU is producing incorrect outputs. + +First, the issue is related to specific CPU instructions (SDOT and UDOT) in QEMU. The problem occurs when the vector length is 64 or higher. The user provided a test case that compiles with specific flags and runs under QEMU with different SVE vector lengths. The output discrepancies start appearing at 64 and above. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, runtime. + +The bug is about the incorrect execution of specific instructions (SDOT/UDOT) in QEMU. Since QEMU is the emulator here, and the instructions are not being handled properly, this would fall under the "instruction" category. The problem isn't with a system call or runtime environment but with how QEMU implements those particular instructions. The user even mentions that the generated assembly uses the correct intrinsics, so the issue is in QEMU's execution of those instructions. Therefore, it's an instruction-related bug in QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..16549bcb4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2604 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that qemu-arm-static crashes when running NEON code generated by GStreamer's Orc library. The problem doesn't happen in system emulation mode. The steps to reproduce involve building Orc and running a test with QEMU user mode. + +Looking at the crash details: the backtrace points to a specific address where the crash occurs. The disassembly shows NEON instructions (vld1.8, vst1.8) followed by some ARM instructions. The crash is a segmentation fault, but the user mentions it's not a memory access issue, so not a straightforward SIGSEGV from invalid memory. + +The key here is that the code runs fine in system mode but crashes in user mode. The problem is related to QEMU's handling of the generated NEON code in user-static mode. Since the code is JIT-generated, maybe QEMU isn't properly handling the code generation or execution of these instructions in user mode. The error message mentions failure to detect invalidation, which might relate to how QEMU manages code cache or translations when code is generated at runtime. + +The categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is about executing generated NEON instructions and QEMU's handling of those instructions in user mode, it's likely an instruction-related problem. However, the mention of invalidation might relate to how QEMU's dynamic translation (TCG) or code caching works. But the user says it's not a memory access, so maybe it's an incorrect translation of the instructions. Alternatively, runtime errors are other runtime issues. However, since the problem is specifically with the execution of the generated code (instructions), the category would be 'instruction'. But wait, maybe the problem is that QEMU's user mode isn't handling the code invalidation when new code is generated. For example, if the JIT code is written to a memory region that QEMU isn't aware of, and thus doesn't translate it properly. That could be a runtime issue. But the error is in the actual instruction execution. Hmm. + +The description says "failure to detect invalidation". Invalidation here might refer to QEMU not detecting that new code has been generated, so it's executing old translations or invalid code. That's more about the runtime management of code regions. But the crash is during instruction execution. However, the root cause is QEMU's inability to properly handle the generated code's execution, possibly due to not updating its internal state when code is generated. This could be a runtime error. But I'm a bit torn. The instruction category is for when a specific instruction is faulty. Since the problem is about generated code not being properly handled by QEMU's execution engine (TCG), maybe it's an instruction issue. Or perhaps it's a runtime problem because it's about managing the execution environment for dynamically generated code. + +Looking at the categories again: "instruction: A faulty instruction is described in the bug report". The report shows the disassembled instructions and the crash occurs in those. But the problem isn't the instruction itself, but QEMU's handling of it. However, if QEMU's translation of that instruction is wrong, that's an instruction error. The user says the same code works in system mode, which suggests that the instruction translation in user mode is incorrect. Therefore, it's an instruction-related bug in QEMU's user mode emulation. So the category would be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2632 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2632 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..741a29161 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2632 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug falls into. The user mentioned that this is part of QEMU and provided some code snippets and TCG optimization details. The problem seems to be about memory access ordering being broken after TCG optimizations. + +Looking at the code before and after optimization, the key part is the transformation of the `eor w3, w2, w2` instruction into `mov_i64 x3, $0x0`. This change removes a dependency between two loads, which was originally there due to the EOR operation. The EOR of a value with itself gives zero, so effectively, the code was zeroing out the register, but in a way that created a data dependency between the first load (into w2) and the second load (using w3). + +By optimizing that EOR into a direct move of zero, the TCG optimizer is eliminating the dependency. This leads to incorrect behavior in a multi-threaded context, probably because the memory model relies on the ordering enforced by the dependency. Without it, the loads might be reordered, leading to race conditions or visibility issues. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The bug here seems to be related to how instructions are translated and optimized in TCG, which is part of QEMU's translation process. The problem isn't a syscall or a runtime error in the traditional sense but rather an incorrect transformation during instruction translation/optimization. However, the options don't have a category for translation or optimization issues. Wait, the possible categories are instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the issue is about the instruction translation and optimization leading to incorrect behavior, maybe it's an "instruction" issue? Because the faulty instruction handling is in the translation process. Alternatively, if it's about runtime behavior due to optimization, maybe "runtime"? But the description says "instruction is described in the bug report". The problem is that the optimization step is changing the instruction sequence in a way that breaks dependencies. Since the original instruction's semantics were not preserved during optimization, this could be classified as an instruction-related bug. The TCG is responsible for correctly translating and optimizing instructions, so if that process breaks dependencies, it's an instruction handling problem. Therefore, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9ff151be6 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/266 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report says that the 'mtfsf' instruction can clear FI incorrectly. So first, I need to understand what each part means. + +The instruction 'mtfsf' is likely a machine instruction, probably from the PowerPC architecture because 'mtfsf' stands for Move to Floating Status Register Field. So this is related to a specific CPU instruction. + +The problem here is that when this instruction is executed, it's not handling the FI (Floating-Point Invalid Operation Enable) bit correctly. The bug report is pointing out that the instruction's execution leads to an incorrect clearing of FI. + +Now, looking at the categories provided: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The 'instruction' category is for when a specific instruction is faulty. Since the issue is directly with the 'mtfsf' instruction's behavior, this fits under the 'instruction' category. It's not a syscall because that's more about system calls made by the program. Runtime errors are other issues during execution, but here the problem is the instruction itself being incorrect. So the correct classification should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2672 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2672 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..16b000f56 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2672 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a problem in QEMU where an illegal instruction is being executed right after a jal instruction in RISC-V64 baremetal emulation. The binary has an illegal instruction following the jal. Normally, the jal should branch to the target address, but instead, the illegal instruction is executed, causing an exception. The example code shows the jal at 0x80006074, and then the next instruction at 0x80006078 is the illegal one. The user provided a QEMU log where the illegal instruction is hit. + +So the key point is that the jal instruction isn't being taken properly. In RISC-V, jal is a jump and link instruction, which should transfer control to the target address. If the illegal instruction is being executed next, that suggests that the jal didn't branch as expected. That could be a problem with how QEMU is handling the jal instruction, perhaps not updating the PC correctly, or not skipping the next instruction properly (though in RISC-V, jal is supposed to branch, so the next instruction after jal should be the target, not the one sequentially after). + +The user is asking to classify the bug as instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is directly related to the execution of the jal instruction and how the subsequent instruction is handled, this sounds like an instruction-related problem. The jal instruction's execution is faulty in QEMU, leading to incorrect program flow. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2b82b8dfe --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2696 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's hexagon emulator. The problem occurs when running an assembly file that defines _start with a .word 0. When they run it with qemu-hexagon, it hits an unreachable assertion in decode_insns() for an invalid instruction. + +So, the key points here are: the issue is in the decode_insns function, which is part of instruction decoding. The assertion is hit when processing an invalid instruction. The user provided an example where the instruction is just 0, which is definitely invalid. The error message says "code should not be reached," implying that the decoder encountered something unexpected. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the problem is during instruction decoding, specifically handling an invalid instruction, this seems to be an issue with the instruction decoding logic. The assertion is part of the code that's supposed to handle instructions, so the category would be "instruction." It's not a syscall because there's no system call involved here. It's also a runtime error, but the specific category here is more about the instruction decoding process. The problem is that the decoder isn't handling invalid instructions properly, leading to an assertion failure. So the correct classification is "instruction." +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2730 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2730 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cab37e5f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2730 @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU related to RISC-V assembly code. The problem occurs when they execute the two instructions: "lui s0, 0x80000" followed by "lw a1, -48(s0)". The result is that a1 becomes 0xffffffff, which I assume is incorrect. + +First, I need to figure out what's happening here. The "lui" instruction loads an upper immediate into a register. The value 0x80000 shifted left by 12 bits (since LUI is 20 bits) would be 0x80000000. So s0 is set to 0x80000000. Then the "lw" instruction is loading a word from the address -48(s0), which is s0 minus 48. That would be 0x80000000 - 0x30 = 0x7fffffd0. + +Now, the issue is that when loading from this address, the result is 0xffffffff. This looks like a sign-extended value. In RISC-V, the "lw" instruction sign-extends the 32-bit value to 64 bits if it's a 64-bit register. But if the memory at that address contains 0xffffffff, then when loaded as a word, it would be 0x00000000ffffffff in a 64-bit register. Wait, no, in RISC-V, when you load a word into a register, it's sign-extended. So if the memory at address 0x7fffffd0 has a 32-bit value of 0xffffffff, which is -1 in two's complement, then sign-extending to 64 bits would result in 0xffffffffffffffff. But the user says a1 becomes 0xffffffff, which is 32 bits of 1s. That suggests that maybe the load isn't sign-extended properly, or perhaps there's an issue with the address being accessed. + +Wait, but the problem is that the result in a1 is 0xffffffff. If the correct behavior is to have a sign-extended 32-bit value, then in a 64-bit register, it should be 0xffffffffffffffff. However, if QEMU is zero-extending instead, or truncating, that could lead to 0x00000000ffffffff, but the user is getting 0xffffffff. That's a 32-bit value. Maybe the register is being set to 32 bits instead of 64? Or perhaps the memory address is invalid, leading to some default value. + +But the user's example is in RISC-V, which uses 64-bit registers. So if the "lw" instruction is supposed to load a 32-bit value and sign-extend it to 64 bits, then 0xffffffff in memory would result in 0xffffffffffffffff in the register. However, the user is seeing 0xffffffff, which is 32 bits. That suggests that perhaps the emulation is not correctly handling the sign extension, or there's an issue with how the memory address is calculated. + +Wait, but the address here is 0x7fffffd0. If the system is using a 32-bit address space, that's possible, but RISC-V can be 32-bit or 64-bit. If QEMU is simulating a 64-bit RISC-V, then addresses are 64-bit. But if there's an overflow in the address calculation, maybe. For example, if the address calculation for -48(s0) is done incorrectly. Let's check: s0 is 0x80000000, subtract 48 (0x30) gives 0x80000000 - 0x30 = 0x7fffffd0. That's correct. So the address is valid. + +But maybe QEMU is not handling sign extension correctly when loading the word. For example, if the memory at that address contains 0x00000000, then loading with lw would result in 0x00000000. If it's 0xffffffff, then sign-extended to 64 bits would be 0xffffffffffffffff. But the user's result is 0xffffffff, which is 32 bits. That suggests that perhaps the register is being written with a 32-bit value instead of 64, which would be a problem in the instruction's handling. So that would be an issue with the instruction's execution in QEMU, specifically the "lw" instruction's behavior. Hence, the category would be "instruction". + +Alternatively, if the problem is that the address is invalid and causing a runtime error, but in this case, the user is not getting a crash or exception, just an incorrect value. So it's a functional error in the instruction's execution. Therefore, the category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9c246103d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2775 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report from QEMU, specifically an internal assertion failure in the sparc64 codegen. The error occurs in translate.c at line 5695 in the function sparc_tr_insn_start. The error message is "code should not be reached," which usually means that the code hit a situation that the developers didn't anticipate, leading to an assertion. + +Looking at the steps to reproduce: they boot a NetBSD/sparc64 system and run some tests. The crash isn't 100% reproducible but happens often. The additional information includes a bunch of assembly instructions that are being processed when the error occurs. The GDB backtrace points to the translator loop and code generation parts of QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) accelerator. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The error seems to be related to the instruction translation process. The function sparc_tr_insn_start is part of translating guest instructions to host code. The assertion failure suggests that the translator encountered an instruction or a sequence it couldn't handle, leading to an unexpected path. Since the problem is during the translation of guest instructions (specifically SPARC64 instructions like sethi and b,a), this points to an issue with how QEMU is handling certain instructions. + +Syscall errors would involve system calls made by the guest OS, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Runtime errors are a broad category, but since the problem is specifically about instruction translation, "instruction" is more precise. The error is triggered by the presence of certain instructions in the guest code that QEMU's translator isn't handling correctly. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2802 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2802 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4cf0e7def --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2802 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let me try to figure out how to classify this bug report. + +The user mentions that the problem is with the Sparc instructions fdtox and fqtox incorrectly selecting the destination register when it's higher than f31. They provided a test program that's supposed to output 60 but prints 0 instead. The issue was introduced in a specific commit related to changes in how destination registers are selected, moving DFPREG/QFPREG to decodetree. + +Looking at the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem seems to be with the instruction decoding or execution. The instructions themselves (fdtox and fmovd) are not working correctly when using registers beyond f31. The test case uses inline assembly, so it's directly testing the instruction behavior. The bug is in how the destination register is selected, which is part of the instruction's handling in QEMU's code. Since it's about the instruction's implementation in QEMU, this would fall under the "instruction" category. + +Syscall would involve system calls, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are more about issues during execution that aren't specific to instructions or syscalls, like memory management maybe. But here, the problem is directly with the instruction's operation. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..153973e61 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2865 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about Qemu's handling of the LoongArch64 `xvldi` instruction. The problem is that when they run a C++ program using this instruction, the output differs between real hardware and Qemu. The expected output is all 0x00000800 values, but Qemu produces alternating 0x08000800 and zeros. + +Looking at the code, the issue is in the `vldi_get_value` function within Qemu's source. The case for 1 is supposed to generate a 32-bit pattern. The current code does `(t << 24) | (t << 8)`, but the user suggests it should be `(t << (8+32)) | t << 8`. Wait, shifting by 32 bits in a 32-bit integer would zero it out. Maybe the data is being treated as 64-bit? Or perhaps the LoongArch instruction expects the immediate to be replicated in a certain way across the vector. + +The `xvldi` instruction is a vector load immediate. The description mentions replicating a byte shifted left by 8, resulting in 0x800 (which is 0x0800 in hex). On real hardware, each 32-bit word is 0x00000800. But Qemu's code is creating a pattern where the immediate is placed at both high and low positions in a 64-bit context, leading to 0x08000800 when stored as a 32-bit value. + +The user points out that the Qemu code for case 1 is using `(t << 24) | (t << 8)`, which would create a 32-bit value with the immediate in bits 8-15 and 24-31. But when this is stored into a 32-bit word, it would result in 0x08000800. However, the correct value should be 0x00000800 repeated. So the problem is that Qemu's implementation of the `xvldi` instruction is incorrect. The suggested fix is to shift one part by 32+8 bits. Maybe the original code is handling 64-bit elements? Or perhaps the instruction's encoding requires replicating the immediate into specific positions across multiple 32-bit words. + +Since the issue is in the translation of the `xvldi` instruction's immediate value into the correct vector pattern, this is a direct error in how the instruction is implemented in Qemu. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..19c4fdbb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2878 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report is about support for AVX512 in QEMU's user space emulation. The task is to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The instruction category is for a faulty instruction described in the bug. Syscall is an error with a system call. Runtime is other runtime errors. + +AVX512 is a set of CPU instructions. So if QEMU's user mode emulation doesn't support AVX512 instructions correctly, that would be an issue with the instruction handling. The user space emulation in QEMU uses dynamic translation (TCG) to emulate CPU instructions. If the problem is that a specific instruction (like an AVX512 instruction) isn't emulated correctly, leading to incorrect execution or crashes, then it's an instruction-related bug. + +The report is about support for a specific instruction set. So the category would be 'instruction' because it's about the correct handling of a CPU instruction. It's not a syscall, which involves system calls made to the OS. Runtime is for other errors during execution, but here the issue is specifically about instruction emulation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7829af0b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/2971 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU crashing on loongarch64 due to lenient instruction decoding of vldi and xvldi. The problem is that the decoding allows illegal immediates, leading to an assertion error and a crash. The test case uses an invalid immediate value in the vldi instruction. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The issue here is related to the instruction decoding. The problem arises because the instructions vldi and xvldi are being decoded even when the immediates are invalid. The QEMU code doesn't handle these invalid cases properly, leading to a crash. Since the core of the problem is the instruction decoding logic allowing invalid instructions that shouldn't be processed, this falls under the "instruction" category. + +Syscalls aren't involved here, and it's not a general runtime error but specifically about how instructions are decoded and handled. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4dc826e2f --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/312 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU's emulation of the fmadds instruction on powerpc64le. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the bug is specifically about the fmadds instruction. The problem arises during the emulation of this particular instruction. Since the instruction itself is the focus here, and the issue is with how QEMU handles it, this would fall under the 'instruction' category. + +Syscall errors are related to system calls made by the program to the kernel, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Runtime errors are more general, like crashes or unexpected behavior during execution, but the report directly points to an instruction emulation problem. Therefore, the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/333 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/333 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..44d61aa2d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/333 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user mentioned a bug report related to QEMU and random errors when executing __aarch64_cas8_acq_rel on aarch64. The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to figure out what __aarch64_cas8_acq_rel is. The name looks like an atomic compare-and-swap instruction for AArch64, with acquire and release memory ordering semantics. CAS (Compare and Swap) is a type of atomic operation instruction used in multi-threaded programming for synchronization. So this is likely an instruction-level issue. + +The problem is occurring during execution of this specific instruction. Since the error is related to the execution of an instruction and the instruction's behavior (like memory ordering), it's probably an issue with how QEMU is emulating that instruction. If QEMU's implementation of the CAS8 instruction is incorrect, that would fall under an instruction-related bug. + +Syscall errors are related to system calls made by the program to the OS, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Runtime errors are more general, like memory corruption or other runtime issues, but the problem is specifically tied to an instruction's execution. So the most accurate category here is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/361 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/361 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2aaf1d1f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/361 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user mentioned that using "-cpu host" in QEMU results in unsupported AVX512 instructions. So, I need to figure out which category this falls into. + +First, the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The error here is about AVX512 instructions not being supported. AVX512 is a set of CPU instructions. So when the bug report says that the CPU doesn't support these instructions, that's directly related to the CPU's instruction set. + +The "-cpu host" option in QEMU tells QEMU to use the host's CPU features. If the host CPU doesn't support AVX512, then QEMU might try to emulate them, but if it's not possible, it would result in an error. The problem here is that the CPU doesn't support those instructions, leading to an error when those instructions are encountered. + +So this seems like an issue with the CPU instruction set not being available, which would be an "instruction" category. It's not a system call error, nor is it a general runtime error. The error is specifically about the CPU instructions being unsupported. + +Therefore, the correct classification is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..79932883a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/364 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report is about QEMU for aarch64, specifically mentioning an incorrect signed comparison in the ldsmax instructions. + +First, I need to understand what the terms mean. QEMU is an emulator, so when they mention aarch64, it's about the ARM 64-bit architecture. The ldsmax instruction probably refers to a specific ARM instruction, maybe Load-Acquire Signed Max? Or something similar. + +The problem is an incorrect signed comparison. That sounds like a mistake in how the instruction handles signed integers when comparing them. Since it's about the instruction's behavior, the error is likely in how QEMU is emulating that particular instruction. + +Looking at the categories: instruction is for a faulty instruction, syscall for system call errors, runtime for other runtime issues. Since the bug is in the instruction's implementation (ldsmax), the correct category should be 'instruction'. The error is about the instruction's logic, specifically the signed comparison part. So the answer is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..457b502f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/381 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The error message is from QEMU's source code, specifically in the file translate-a64.c at line 13229. The function mentioned is disas_simd_two_reg_misc_fp16. The error is "code should not be reached." + +First, I need to figure out what category this falls into. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The error message suggests that during the execution of QEMU, it hit a part of the code that's supposed to be unreachable. That usually means there's an unexpected instruction or a case that wasn't handled properly in the disassembler or emulator. + +Looking at the function name, disas_simd_two_reg_misc_fp16 probably deals with decoding SIMD instructions involving two registers and FP16 (half-precision floating point) operations. The error "code should not be reached" implies that during the decoding process, the code encountered an instruction pattern that it wasn't expecting. + +Since this is related to the decoding of an instruction (specifically, a SIMD instruction with FP16), it's likely an issue with how a particular instruction is being handled. The problem isn't a system call, so it's not the syscall category. It's also not a general runtime error, but rather a specific problem with the instruction decoding logic. Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/385 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/385 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e8e3e69ab --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/385 @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU and wants me to classify it into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The title mentions an "ARM user regression since a specific commit." + +First, I need to understand what a regression in this context means. A regression is a bug that was introduced after a change, so the commit mentioned is likely where the issue started. + +The category options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for faulty instructions described in the bug. Syscall is for errors related to system calls. Runtime is for other runtime errors. + +Since the bug report is about a regression in ARM user mode, I'm thinking about what could cause that. ARM user mode typically runs user-space applications, so if there's a regression, it might be related to how QEMU handles ARM instructions in user mode. That would fall under the "instruction" category if the problem is with executing an incorrect or faulty instruction. However, if the issue is about system calls not working correctly, then it's syscall. But the mention of "user regression" might point towards user-space execution issues, which could involve instructions. + +Alternatively, runtime errors are more general, like crashes, memory issues, etc., not specifically instruction or syscall errors. But the problem here is a regression, which could be due to incorrect instruction emulation. For example, if a certain ARM instruction isn't being emulated correctly after that commit, causing user-space programs to fail. + +I think the key here is whether the bug is about executing an incorrect instruction. If the QEMU ARM emulator started executing a wrong instruction or not handling a specific instruction correctly, leading to user-space issues, then it's an instruction category. If it's about system calls, like failing to make a syscall or handling it wrong, then syscall. Otherwise, if it's a crash or other runtime problem not related to instructions or syscalls, it's runtime. + +The user didn't provide the full bug report, just the title. The title doesn't specify syscalls, so it's more likely about instruction handling. So the category is probably instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c49e975f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/390 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU, specifically about the atomic path of the Load Quadword instruction requiring an address with write permission. The task is to classify this bug into one of three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what the bug is about. The Load Quadword instruction is a type of CPU instruction, likely related to loading a quadword (which is 128 bits) from memory. The issue here is that the atomic path of this instruction requires the address to have write permission. + +Now, considering the categories. The 'instruction' category is for faulty instructions described in the bug. Since the bug is about an instruction (Load Quadword) and its atomic path's requirement, this seems to directly relate to the instruction's behavior. + +The 'syscall' category is for errors with system calls, which are calls made by a program to the operating system. This doesn't seem to involve a syscall, so I can rule that out. + +The 'runtime' category is for other errors that occur during runtime. However, the problem here is with the instruction's atomic path, which is part of the instruction's execution. Since the issue is about the instruction's requirement for write permissions on the address, it's more about the instruction's correctness rather than a runtime error like a crash or memory issue during execution. + +Therefore, the correct category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b3ae87adb --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/422 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue where they can't execute MIPS MSA code because of an illegal instruction. The question is to classify this bug report into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what each category means. The instruction category is for bugs related to faulty instructions. Syscall is about system call errors, and runtime covers other runtime errors not fitting into the first two. + +The problem here is an illegal instruction when executing MIPS MSA code. MIPS MSA refers to the MIPS SIMD Architecture, which adds vector instructions. If QEMU is throwing an illegal instruction error, it might be because QEMU doesn't support those specific MSA instructions yet, or there's a bug in how they're emulated. Since the error is about an illegal instruction, which directly relates to the execution of a specific instruction, this seems like an instruction category issue. The user is encountering an illegal instruction error, which is directly related to the instruction set emulation in QEMU. So the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c9b010ef1 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/427 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report is about QEMU incorrectly raising an exception on the SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction. I need to classify this into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, the problem is related to an instruction. The user mentioned the SSE4.2 CRC32 instruction specifically. QEMU is an emulator, so when it's emulating CPU instructions, any issues here would fall under the instruction category. The incorrect exception handling here is due to the emulation of that specific instruction. + +Syscall would be if it's related to system calls made by the guest operating system to the host, but this is about a CPU instruction. Runtime errors are general runtime issues, but since the problem is directly tied to an instruction's emulation, the instruction category seems right. So the answer is instruction. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ba66e33fc --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/449 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU's s390x linux-user mode. The issue is an assertion failure in the translate.c file when running a Go program that uses vector instructions. The error message mentions an assertion in get_field1, which suggests a problem during the translation of instructions. + +The steps to reproduce involve using QEMU to run a static binary for s390x, and the crash happens when executing vector ASM code. The backtrace points to the Go runtime's signal handling, but the root cause seems to be in QEMU's translation of the s390x instructions. The user also mentions that reverting a specific series of patches in QEMU fixes the issue, which implies that the problem is related to how certain instructions are handled in the emulator. + +The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the assertion is in the translation of instructions (translate.c), and the problem is related to handling specific vector instructions, this falls under the "instruction" category. The issue isn't about a system call or the runtime environment but rather about the correct translation and execution of machine instructions by QEMU. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0966912ff --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/494 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's tackle this bug report classification. The user says that CMake crashes on qemu-alpha-user with an "Illegal Instruction". The possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, "Illegal Instruction" typically means the CPU encountered an instruction it doesn't recognize or can't execute. Since QEMU is emulating a CPU (in this case, Alpha), this could be due to QEMU not correctly handling a specific instruction that CMake is trying to execute. That points towards the 'instruction' category. + +Syscall errors usually involve system calls failing, which isn't mentioned here. Runtime errors are more general, but the specific mention of Illegal Instruction relates to the instruction set emulation. So, the most fitting category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ca00d25c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/508 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting that the x86_64 cmpxchg behavior in QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) doesn't match the real CPU. I need to classify this bug report into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I should recall what each category means. The "instruction" category is for when a specific instruction is implemented incorrectly. "Syscall" would be if the issue is with system calls, which are interactions with the operating system. "Runtime" is for other runtime errors not related to specific instructions or syscalls. + +The cmpxchg instruction is an x86 instruction used for compare-and-exchange operations, which is crucial for synchronization in multi-threaded programs. The problem here is that QEMU's TCG is not emulating this instruction correctly compared to real hardware. Since the issue is directly about the execution of a specific CPU instruction, this would fall under the "instruction" category. There's no mention of system calls here, and it's about the instruction's behavior, so runtime is probably not the right choice. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/514 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/514 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6cabb2083 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/514 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let me try to figure this out. The user is reporting a bug related to QEMU and MTE (Memory Tagging Extension) generating a false positive tag check fault when using the SP (stack pointer) as the base register in a store instruction. + +First, the problem description says that when executing an SP-based store with an offset, a tag check fault occurs. But according to the ARM specification, such accesses should be Tag Unchecked. The user provided example code generated by Clang, which uses "stp x29, x30, [sp, #-64]!" and "str x23, [sp, #16]". The first instruction causes an exception. The ESR_EL1 value indicates a Synchronous Tag Check Fault. The user mentions that QEMU might be incorrectly generating this exception for SP-based loads/stores with offsets. + +The ARM spec says that when SP is the base register, whether with an immediate offset or not, the access should be Tag Unchecked. That means MTE shouldn't check the tag bits for these accesses, so no exception should be triggered. But in QEMU's emulation, it's happening. So the issue is that QEMU's handling of these SP-based instructions is not aligning with the ARM spec regarding MTE. + +The user is pointing out that QEMU is erroneously generating the tag mismatch exception. The categories to choose from are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Since the problem is about the execution of a specific instruction (stp and str with SP) and how QEMU emulates that instruction's behavior regarding MTE, this seems to be an issue with the instruction emulation in QEMU. The syscall category is for system call errors, which isn't the case here. Runtime errors are for other runtime issues, but the problem is specifically about the instruction's handling. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/616 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/616 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..62f9f062a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/616 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue where the overflow condition code isn't being determined correctly on s390x when using QEMU. The problem is in the generated code from GCC, which uses the 'o' condition code (overflow) after an addition. The expected behavior is that adding two minimum 32-bit and 64-bit integers should overflow, but QEMU is returning 'no_overflow = 1' instead of 0. + +The user suggests that the problem might be either in GCC or QEMU. The key part here is that the code generated by GCC uses the CPU's overflow condition code. If QEMU isn't correctly emulating how the overflow condition code is set during operations like 'agr' (Add with Register), then that's a QEMU bug. The user even provided a patch for QEMU that fixes the issue, which points towards QEMU's emulation of the condition codes being incorrect. + +Since the issue is about how QEMU handles the overflow condition code during instruction execution, this falls under the "instruction" category. The problem isn't with a syscall or runtime environment but with the correct emulation of a specific CPU instruction's side effects (setting the condition code). The patch provided likely corrects how QEMU tracks or checks the overflow condition after arithmetic operations. Therefore, the bug is in QEMU's instruction emulation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ef759cc10 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/618 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug report falls into. The user says it's part of QEMU, so the options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +The problem is about the overflow condition code after a subtraction on s390x. The code in QEMU's cc_helper.c is mentioned. The issue is that when using the 'sgr' instruction (signed subtract), the overflow flag isn't being set correctly according to the z/Architecture POP. The user provided a patch that fixes the determination of the overflow condition code. + +Since the bug is related to how QEMU emulates the condition codes after a specific instruction (sgr), this seems to be an issue with the correct handling of a machine instruction's side effects. The overflow flag is part of the CPU's state, and QEMU's TCG (Tiny Code Generator) is responsible for correctly updating these flags based on the executed instructions. Therefore, this is likely an instruction-related bug because the problem is in how the instruction's condition codes are being calculated and stored. + +The patch provided probably corrects the logic in the helper code that determines the overflow after a subtract operation. Since the overflow flag is part of the processor's condition code, and the bug is in the code that computes this, the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8e5aa107c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/625 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's HPPA floating-point power function. The problem is that when they run a simple C program using the pow function, it returns 403.45 instead of the expected 1,000,000.0. The steps to reproduce involve compiling the code with hppa1.1-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc and running it under qemu-hppa. + +Hmm, so the bug is in the QEMU emulator for HPPA. The question is to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, let's think about what each category means. Instruction-related bugs would involve incorrect emulation of specific CPU instructions. Syscall would be about system call handling errors. Runtime is for other runtime issues not fitting into the first two. + +In this case, the problem is with the pow function's result. The pow function is part of the math library, and its correct execution depends on the underlying CPU's floating-point operations. Since HPPA is a specific architecture, QEMU emulates its instructions. If the emulation of the floating-point instructions (like those used by pow) is incorrect in QEMU, that would lead to wrong results. + +So, the error here likely stems from QEMU not correctly emulating a specific HPPA instruction related to floating-point operations. The pow function's result is incorrect because when the compiled code runs under QEMU, the emulated CPU isn't handling the necessary instructions properly. That points towards an instruction-level emulation error in QEMU. + +Therefore, this should be classified as an "instruction" bug. It's not a syscall issue because the problem isn't with the operating system calls but with the CPU instruction emulation. It's also not a general runtime error but specifically tied to how a particular instruction is handled. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/645662 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/645662 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..eeb60d3a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/645662 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out what category this bug report falls into. The user says it's part of QEMU, and they're seeing issues with Python regression tests failing due to floating-point precision problems. + +The problem seems to be related to the x87 emulation in QEMU. The user mentions that QEMU's x87 emulation for trigonometric and other complex operations is only using 64-bit precision instead of 80-bit. That's important because the x87 FPU typically uses 80-bit internal registers, and if QEMU is emulating it with 64 bits, that would lead to precision loss. + +Looking at the test failures: test_cmath, test_float, and test_math. The errors are about values not being close enough, which points to floating-point calculation discrepancies. The specific example in test_float shows a difference in the represented value when converting a float to a string, which suggests that the floating-point computations during the conversion are not precise enough. + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The instruction category is for faulty instructions. Since the issue is about the emulation of x87 instructions (like those for trigonometric functions) not using the correct precision, that would relate to how QEMU emulates specific CPU instructions. The problem isn't with a system call (syscall category) because it's about FPU operations, not OS-level calls. Runtime errors are for other runtime issues, but here the core issue is in the instruction emulation. + +Therefore, the bug is likely due to QEMU's incorrect emulation of x87 instructions, specifically handling precision. So the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..66b4b2c76 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/754 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report related to QEMU. They mentioned that when running with certain CPU options and debug flags, there's an issue with the instruction decoding. Specifically, the disassembler and translator disagree on instruction decoding, leading to some instructions not being executed and an extra instruction appearing. + +Looking at the details, the problem seems to be around the `trapcs` instruction. The QEMU output shows that after `trapcs`, instead of executing the next instruction, it jumps to an `orib` instruction. The user also notes that some instructions like `linkw` and `movel` are not executed. This suggests that the issue is with how QEMU is handling the decoding of the machine instructions. + +The key part here is the error message: "Disassembler disagrees with translator over instruction decoding". This points to an instruction-level problem where QEMU's disassembler and the code translator (TCG or similar) have a mismatch in interpreting the machine code. That's a classic symptom of an instruction decoding bug in the emulator. + +Since the problem is about incorrect instruction decoding leading to wrong execution flow, this falls under the "instruction" category. There's no mention of system calls or runtime errors like memory issues or segmentation faults. The core issue is in the execution of the instructions themselves. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/796480 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/796480 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6531dc956 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/796480 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is talking about QEMU's user mode emulation. They have a problem where two different guest addresses (0x220000000 and 0x320000000) are being treated as the same because their lower 32 bits are identical. When the host is 32-bit Linux, the translation of memory references in QEMU seems to be causing this issue. + +The main issue here is that when the guest is 64-bit and the host is 32-bit, QEMU might be using the lower 32 bits for some part of the address translation. The user's test program shows that when accessing different addresses in the guest that differ in the upper bits, the host ends up reading from the same memory location because the 32-bit part is the same. This leads to incorrect behavior where different addresses in the guest are not properly distinguished. + +The problem seems to be related to how QEMU handles memory addresses during instruction execution in user mode. The test case compiles a 64-bit binary, runs it under QEMU on a 32-bit host, and the memory accesses are not being correctly translated. The addresses in the guest are 64-bit, but the host can't handle the full 64-bit address, so maybe QEMU is truncating or mishandling the address translation process, leading to the same physical address being used for different guest addresses that share the lower 32 bits. + +The user mentions that this is a problem with memory reference instructions. So when the guest program accesses different memory locations that differ in the upper bits beyond the 32-bit range, QEMU's translation on a 32-bit host isn't capturing that difference. This would be an issue with how the instructions are being emulated, specifically the memory addressing part. + +Since the issue is about how the instructions (specifically memory references) are being translated and executed by QEMU, this would fall under the "instruction" category. The bug isn't about system calls or runtime errors like memory allocation failures but rather about incorrect execution of instructions due to address handling. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..47a55d99d --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/799 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU crashing when optimizing an SVE2 instruction. The error message mentions an assertion failure in the TCG optimizer, specifically "Unrecognized operation 145 in do_constant_folding." + +First, I need to determine the category. The options are instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +Looking at the description, the problem occurs during the optimization of an SVE2 instruction. The reproducer is an assembly code snippet that includes SVE2 instructions like uqxtnt. The error is happening in the TCG optimizer, which is part of QEMU's translation process for guest instructions. + +Since the issue is related to an unrecognized operation (operation code 145) during the optimization phase when handling SVE2 instructions, this seems to be an issue with the instruction handling in TCG. The TCG (Tiny Code Generator) is responsible for translating guest instructions into host machine code. If it doesn't recognize an operation, that's an instruction-related problem. + +The error isn't about a system call or a runtime error that occurs during execution of the guest code but rather during the translation/optimization phase. However, the categories given are instruction, syscall, runtime. Since the problem is due to an unrecognized instruction (operation) in the optimizer, the correct category here would be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7adfe5956 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/824 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The problem is about a Translation Block error in QEMU. The user provided a specific example where the generated code has some oddities. Let's break it down. + +Looking at the given instructions, there are four entries in the Translation Block. The first and third instructions are the same: "cmp eax, 0x6" with the same addresses and opcodes. The second and fourth instructions are at the same addresses, but the second is just "0f" which isn't a complete instruction, and the fourth is "jnle 0x524" which starts with "0f 8f". + +Wait, the "0f" is the prefix for two-byte opcodes. So the second byte of the fourth instruction is the actual opcode. But in the second instruction, it's only "0f", which isn't a valid instruction on its own. That suggests that the translation process might have split a multi-byte instruction incorrectly. The "jnle" is a two-byte opcode, starting with "0f" followed by "8f". So when QEMU translates the host machine code into the guest's code, it's possible that it's mishandling multi-byte instructions, leading to overlapping or incorrect translation blocks. + +The issue here seems to be with how QEMU is translating the instructions into the Translation Block. The same instruction addresses are being reused for different parts of the instruction, which shouldn't happen. This could be a problem in the dynamic translation process, where the translator isn't properly accounting for multi-byte opcodes or is misaligning the instructions. + +Since the problem is related to the translation of instructions into the block and the structure of those instructions, it's not a syscall issue. It's not a runtime error either because the error is in the translation process itself, which is part of the instruction decoding and translation. Therefore, the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..710d2674a --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/826 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU's handling of the AArch64 SVE2 LDNT1SB instruction. The problem is that the address calculated for the load is incorrect, leading to a data abort. + +The instruction in question is `ldnt1sb {z6.d}, p3/z, [z14.d, x9]`. From the description, the registers involved are Z14 (a vector register) and X9 (a scalar). The address is supposed to be calculated as the vector plus scalar. However, QEMU is redirecting this to the SVE LD1SB handler, which might not support this specific addressing mode. + +The user mentions that the commit in QEMU for LDNT1SB redirects to SVE's LD1SB handler. The LD1SB instruction in SVE might use a different addressing mode (like scalar plus vector), but the LDNT1SB here uses vector plus scalar. If the LD1SB handler is being used incorrectly, it might miscalculate the address because it's expecting a different operand order or different addressing mode. This would result in an incorrect address being accessed, leading to a data abort as observed. + +Since the issue is with the instruction's handling—specifically, the address calculation part of the LDNT1SB instruction not being correctly implemented by reusing the LD1SB handler—it's an error in the instruction's execution. The problem isn't a syscall or runtime error but rather an incorrect implementation of the instruction in QEMU. So the category should be 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..902e492ce --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/837 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a bug in QEMU where the icebp instruction (which is 0xF1) is causing a SIGILL instead of the correct SIGTRAP. The problem is that on real hardware, executing icebp raises a #DB exception, which translates to SIGTRAP. But in QEMU, it's giving an Illegal Instruction signal instead. + +The icebp instruction is an x86 instruction related to debugging. When executed, it triggers a debug exception. The user provided a test case where compiling a simple assembly file that uses this instruction shows different signals between real hardware and QEMU. The key here is that the instruction itself is correct (it's properly recognized by QEMU, but the resulting signal is wrong). + +The categories given are instruction, syscall, or runtime. Since the issue is about how QEMU handles the specific instruction (icebp) and the resulting signal, this seems to be an instruction-related issue. The problem isn't with a syscall, because the test case is about handling of an instruction. It's not a runtime error in the general sense either. The error is specifically in how QEMU emulates that particular instruction's behavior, so the category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1bd6c996e --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/890 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The bug report is about a misinterpretation of an arm neon invalid instruction. The user is asking to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. + +First, I need to understand what the problem is. The term "invalid insn" refers to an invalid instruction. Neon is the ARM's SIMD architecture extension. So the bug is about an invalid instruction in the ARM Neon context. + +The categories are instruction for when a faulty instruction is described. Since the problem is about an invalid instruction being misinterpreted, that directly relates to the instruction category. Syscall errors are about system calls, which this doesn't seem to be. Runtime errors are other issues occurring during execution, but the problem here is specifically about an instruction not being recognized or handled correctly. + +Therefore, the correct category should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..351b2ab88 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/904308 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is talking about a bug in QEMU's x86 translation code, specifically in the BT family of instructions. The issue is that the ZF (Zero Flag) is always being set, which probably shouldn't be the case. + +Looking at the code snippets provided, there are two instances where `tcg_gen_movi_tl(cpu_cc_dst, 0)` is called. The comment points out that this is "always set zf". The ZF flag is supposed to be set based on whether the result is zero, but here, it's being forced to zero regardless. + +The problem seems to be that the code is incorrectly handling the ZF flag for the BT instructions. The BT, BTS, BTR, BTC instructions affect the carry flag (CF) based on the bit they operate on, but the ZF is supposed to be unaffected. However, the code here is setting ZF to zero in some cases where it shouldn't. + +The user mentions that there's a fixed patch, but the question is about classifying this bug. Since it's related to the incorrect handling of a CPU instruction's effect on the flags (specifically ZF), this is an issue with the instruction emulation. The categories given are 'instruction', 'syscall', or 'runtime'. Since this is about the x86 instruction's behavior in QEMU, the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/947 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/947 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..45ca1132c --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/947 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting a segmentation fault in QEMU's TCG when a helper function is called. The problem seems to be with the generated code not loading the upper 32 bits of the address for lookup_tb_ptr. The address being accessed is 0x1cffe060, but the correct one should be 0x7ff71cffe064. The issue is pointing to a specific line in tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc where there's a bitmask operation using 0xffffUL instead of 0xffffULL. The suggested fix is changing UL to ULL. + +So, the problem here is related to how the address is being handled. The bitmask is using a 32-bit unsigned long (UL) instead of a 64-bit unsigned long long (ULL). On AArch64, which is a 64-bit architecture, using a 32-bit mask would cause the upper bits to not be properly masked out, leading to an incorrect address calculation. This would result in the generated code trying to jump to an incorrect address, hence the segmentation fault when the helper function is called. + +The error is in the instruction generation phase, where the code is generating the wrong immediate value due to the incorrect bitmask. This leads to an invalid memory address being used when branching to the helper function. Since the issue is with the generated machine instructions not correctly representing the intended address, this falls under an "instruction" category. It's not a syscall or a runtime error, but specifically a mistake in the instruction encoding or address handling during code generation. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a962b0419 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/952 @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user is reporting an issue with QEMU where running a 32-bit ARM binary causes a core dump, but when debugging with GDB, it exits normally. The problem seems to be related to the BKPT instruction not being properly converted into a SIGTRAP signal in QEMU's user mode. + +First, the user mentions that the BKPT instruction at address 0xa608 isn't recognized correctly. The BKPT instruction in ARM is used for breakpoints, and when executed, it should generate a SIGTRAP signal. In QEMU, the emulator is supposed to catch this instruction and translate it into the appropriate signal for the guest OS. If QEMU isn't handling this correctly, it could lead to unhandled exceptions, hence the core dump. + +Looking at the GDB session, when the user steps through the instructions, executing the BKPT instruction causes QEMU to loop indefinitely without sending the SIGTRAP. This suggests that QEMU's ARM emulator isn't detecting the BKPT opcode and triggering the signal handling mechanism. The backtrace from GDB shows that QEMU is hitting an unhandled CPU exception, leading to an abort. The error message "qemu: uncaught target signal 5 (Trace/breakpoint trap)" indicates that QEMU received a signal (SIGTRAP) but didn't handle it properly. + +The user also references a fixed bug (Launchpad 1873898), but the problem persists. That suggests either the fix isn't applied, or there's a different but related issue. Since the problem is directly tied to the handling of the BKPT instruction and the resulting signal, this falls under instruction handling. The core dump occurs because QEMU doesn't process the BKPT instruction correctly, leading to an unhandled exception. + +In the categories provided, 'instruction' is for faulty instruction handling, 'syscall' for system call issues, and 'runtime' for other runtime errors. Since the root cause is QEMU's incorrect handling of the BKPT instruction, the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/967 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/967 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..14a76d706 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/967 @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a QEMU bug report and wants me to classify it into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The possible categories are given, and I need to pick the right one. + +Looking at the information provided, the stack trace shows a segmentation fault in QEMU's code. The backtrace points to functions like `raise`, `abort`, and then QEMU's internal functions such as `tcg_qemu_prologue`, `tcg_tb_lookup`, and `cpu_exec`. These functions are part of QEMU's execution core, specifically related to TCG (Tiny Code Generator), which is QEMU's dynamic translator. + +The segmentation fault occurs in `tcg_qemu_prologue`, which is part of the code generation process. The address `0x562f379565d6` is where the crash happens. The registers show that the instruction pointer (RIP) is pointing to that address. The error message "Segmentation fault" typically indicates that the program tried to access an invalid memory location. + +Now, considering the categories. The 'instruction' category is for a faulty instruction, which would mean there's an incorrect or invalid CPU instruction being executed. The 'syscall' category is for errors related to system calls. The 'runtime' category is for other runtime errors. + +In this case, the crash is happening during the execution of QEMU's code generation. The TCG is responsible for translating guest instructions into host instructions. If there's a bug in how QEMU generates or handles these instructions, it could lead to an invalid memory access, causing a segmentation fault. This seems to be an issue with the generated code or how instructions are handled, which would fall under the 'instruction' category. However, if the problem is more about the runtime environment or how QEMU is managing its execution flow, it might be 'runtime'. + +But looking deeper, the backtrace shows that the error is in `tcg_qemu_prologue`, which is part of the TCG's prologue code generation. This suggests that there's an issue with the generated code, perhaps an invalid instruction or incorrect memory access during the execution of the translated code. Since the problem is directly related to the instruction handling or code generation, the 'instruction' category seems appropriate. The 'runtime' category is for other runtime errors, which are not specifically related to instructions or syscalls. Since this is about the execution of generated instructions leading to a crash, 'instruction' is the correct classification. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..98befac01 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/979 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's tackle this bug report classification. The user mentioned that the problem is with s390x floating point conversion functions being broken. They provided a diff between an output file and a reference, indicating that the actual results don't match the expected ones. + +First, I need to recall the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The description says the handling of some cases is broken. The functions in question are float_convs and float_convd. Since these are floating-point conversions, they likely involve specific CPU instructions for handling floating-point operations on the s390x architecture. + +If the issue is that the CPU instructions for these conversions are not working correctly on s390x, then it would fall under the 'instruction' category. The problem isn't with a system call, as that would involve interactions with the OS, which isn't mentioned here. It's also not a general runtime error, but rather a specific instruction handling issue. So the correct category is 'instruction'. +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b94fbf6e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/984 @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU's i386 emulation. The issue is with the fldl instruction not handling the precision control bits correctly. They mentioned that the problem stems from a specific commit related to the FloatParts switchover and that it affects the float64_to_floatx80 conversion. + +The key points here are about the fldl instruction's behavior being incorrect due to changes in the FPU control word's precision bits. The problem is in the conversion function used by the instruction. Since the bug is tied directly to the instruction's implementation and how it interacts with the FPU control word, this would fall under an instruction-related issue. The other categories like syscall or runtime don't fit here because it's specifically about the execution of a particular CPU instruction in the emulator. So the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8cb540145 --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/993 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about an "invalid opcode" error related to "vzeroupper" on Fedora 36. The crash stack and disassembly show that the error occurs in the function sha512_block_data_order_avx2 from libgnutls.so.30. The specific instruction causing the problem is vzeroupper. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The description mentions an invalid opcode, which directly relates to an instruction. The vzeroupper instruction is an x86 AVX instruction. If the CPU doesn't support AVX, executing this instruction would cause an illegal instruction error (SIGILL). + +Looking at the disassembly, the error is at the vzeroupper line. This suggests that the program is trying to execute an instruction that the CPU doesn't recognize. The categories include "instruction" for cases where a faulty instruction is the cause. Since the problem is the use of an instruction (vzeroupper) that isn't supported by the current processor, this fits the "instruction" category. + +The other categories don't seem to fit here. There's no mention of a syscall failing, so "syscall" isn't right. "Runtime" is for other runtime errors, but this is specifically about an invalid instruction opcode, which is more about the instruction set compatibility. Therefore, the correct classification should be "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8899818ce --- /dev/null +++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/instruction/998 @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +<think> +Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report about QEMU and an issue with the SCTLR_EL1.BT0 bit in user mode. The problem relates to the PACIASP instruction acting as a BTI landing pad under certain conditions. The sample code is supposed to crash with SIGILL if QEMU is working correctly, but otherwise, it might crash with SIGSEGV. + +First, I need to classify this bug into one of the categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. The description mentions that the issue is about the incorrect setting of a system control register (SCTLR_EL1.BT0) when in user mode. The PACIASP instruction's behavior depends on this bit. Since the problem is about how an instruction (PACIASP) is being handled based on the state of a register, this seems to relate to instruction execution. The core of the issue is that QEMU isn't setting the BT0 bit correctly, leading to incorrect behavior when the PACIASP instruction is executed. + +Syscalls are about system calls made by the program, which doesn't seem to be the main issue here. The problem isn't with a specific system call but rather with how the emulator handles the CPU state (specifically the SCTLR_EL1 register) during instruction execution. Runtime errors could include a broad range of issues, but since the problem is directly tied to instruction execution and CPU state, it's more specific to the instruction handling in QEMU. Therefore, the correct category is "instruction". +</think> + +instruction \ No newline at end of file |