[9fans] plan9/arm in Go 1.7? (was: rc exec error behaviour)

Russ has started the planning for Go 1.7 on #godev. Would it be too optimistic to expect plan9/arm in that release? >> Richard Miller is contributing a lot of great stuff to Go for plan9/arm. > > Thank you, but mostly I've just updated and titivated the previous > work from Lucio and Gorka, to

Re: [9fans] plan9/arm in Go 1.7? (was: rc exec error behaviour)

> Russ has started the planning for Go 1.7 on #godev. Would it be too > optimistic to expect plan9/arm in that release? Yes. Richard has already submitted his CLs for review. -- David du Colombier

[9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

I'm studying the 9front's amd64 kernel, and I'm pretty new to assembler programming, so sorry if my question is too dumb... I cannot understand the FP pseudo register usage. The cpuid function, for example, is implemented as /* * The CPUID instruction is always supported on the amd64. */ TEXT

Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

Thanks for the explainations! I did read in the Pike's paper about the syntax name+offset(FP), but I did understood that name had to be a symbol already defined, and I was looking for it in the c code. Sorry for the noise! This led me to another question, however: I've read before that the plan9

Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

On 1 February 2016 at 16:47, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > MOVQinfo+8(FP), BP > MOVLAX, 0(BP) > MOVLBX, 4(BP) > MOVLCX, 8(BP) > MOVLDX, 12(BP) > RET > > What I miss is where "info" comes from. > the syntax name+offset(FP) defines name as

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

> Thank you, but mostly I've just updated and titivated the previous > work from Lucio and Gorka, to the state where it should pass the > codereview and does pass all the go1.6 tests (with *ncpu=1). I need to point out that I really added nothing other than a minute amount of coordination at the

[9fans] Fwd: lib9p: Add clunk callback to Srv struct

Someone here can help me? -- Forwarded message -- From: Tiago Natel Date: 2016-02-01 19:17 GMT-02:00 Subject: lib9p: Add clunk callback to Srv struct To: 9fr...@9front.org Hello folks, Is there a reason why lib9p doesn't have a clunk function pointer

Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

FP is a translated to a varying offset to SP depending on where in the program you are. arguments on the stack are padded to 8 bytes on amd64, the first argument is not passed on the stack on function entry, but passed in BP register (RARG is an alias for that), however the slot on the stack for

Re: [9fans] Fwd: lib9p: Add clunk callback to Srv struct

> Is there a reason why lib9p doesn't have a clunk function pointer in Srv > struct? what about Srv.destroyfid()? Destroyfid When a Fid's reference count drops to zero (i.e., it has been clunked and there are no outstanding requests

Re: [9fans] Fwd: lib9p: Add clunk callback to Srv struct

> I have a file server project using Srv and I want to know when no one > client have a specific file opened. i believe since you're using alloctree and passing in the destroy function, you don't need it.

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

Cinap assured me that go works on 9front. Please send a wish list. Here docs in functions are on it. Exec was the ball buster. On 02/02/2016 8:53 AM, wrote: > > Thank you, but mostly I've just updated and titivated the previous > > work from Lucio and Gorka, to the state

Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

On 1 February 2016 at 23:34, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > Is it correct to say that this means that the Plan9 compiler suite *never* > follows the sysV calling convention documented at section 3.2.3 of AMD64 > ABI http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf and always pushes >

Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler

I kinda agree, but I'm too incompetent in the matter. :-) However, I was simply asking if, on amd64, kencc uses the 6 registers that the abi deserves to the parameters. As far as I've understood only BP is used (for the first argument, if integer). Can you confirm? Giacomo 2016-02-02 1:36

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

> Richard Miller is contributing a lot of great stuff to Go for plan9/arm. Thank you, but mostly I've just updated and titivated the previous work from Lucio and Gorka, to the state where it should pass the codereview and does pass all the go1.6 tests (with *ncpu=1). For multicore I am still

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

> On Jan 31, 2016, at 8:06 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > i don't believe the offer was made with a straight face. But perhaps with a bent compiler.

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

> On Feb 1, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Prof Brucee wrote: > > Every time I bend something it breaks. I remember the "where's Bruce" from the ... whereever the hell it was Plan9 workshop video.

Re: [9fans] rc exec error behaviour

Every time I bend something it breaks. On 02/02/2016 3:18 PM, "Lyndon Nerenberg" wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 2016, at 8:06 PM, erik quanstrom > wrote: > > > > i don't believe the offer was made with a straight face. > > But perhaps with a bent compiler. > >