> On Jun 6, 2017, at 12:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05/22/17 19:08, Fan, Jeff wrote: >> >> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/X64/MpFuncs.nasm >> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/X64/MpFuncs.nasm >> index fa54d01..0b14a53 100644 >> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/X64/MpFuncs.nasm >> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/X64/MpFuncs.nasm >> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >> ;------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ; -; Copyright (c) 2015 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.<BR> >> +; Copyright (c) 2015 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights >> +reserved.<BR> >> ; This program and the accompanying materials ; are licensed and made >> available under the terms and conditions of the BSD License ; which >> accompanies this distribution. The full text of the license may be found at >> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ CProcedureInvoke: >> push rbp >> mov rbp, rsp >> >> - mov rax, ASM_PFX(InitializeFloatingPointUnits) >> + mov rax, qword [esi + InitializeFloatingPointUnitsAddress]
Does nasm remove the need for the ASM_PFX() macro? That macro hides if C is decorating with a _ prefix. Also given it is a #define (equ) why do we use camel case vs. all caps? Thanks, Andrew Fish >> sub rsp, 20h >> call rax ; Call assembly function to initialize FPU >> per UEFI spec >> add rsp, 20h > > FYI, the qword specifier is unnecessary since you are already specifying > rax. > > However, why not simply drop the use of rax entirely and do: > > call [esi + InitializeFloatingPointUnitsAddress] > > (Also: is this *really* supposed to be esi and not rsi? The former > means a 32-bit address.) > > -hpa > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
