> On Nov 5, 2020, at 4:26 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>>> I was also thinking of introducing of operand modifier, but Richi
>>> advises the following:
>>>
>>> --cut here--
>>> typedef __UINTPTR_TYPE__ uintptr_t;
>>>
>>> __seg_fs int x;
>>>
> On Apr 28, 2020, at 10:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:24 AM David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 28 April 2020 17:14:49 BST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:41:33PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Its fine to focus on userspace first, but t
> On Apr 28, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:41:33PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Its fine to focus on userspace first, but the kernel is far more simple.
>>
>> Looking at that presentation, the only thing missing for kernel is the
>> notrack thunks,
On Sep 2, 2015 6:57 AM, "Brian Gerst" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2015 6:53 PM, "Brian Gerst" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> >> wrote:
> &g
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:32:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:39:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 1
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:39:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:51:44PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> Hi all-
>> &
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:51:44PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Hi all-
>>
>> Linux has a handful of weird features that are only supported for
>> backwards compatibility. The big one is the x86_64 vsyscall p
On Sep 1, 2015 6:12 PM, "Ian Lance Taylor" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > Linux has a handful of weird features that are only supported for
> > backwards compatibility. The big one is the x86_64 vsyscall page, but
On Sep 1, 2015 6:53 PM, "Brian Gerst" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> > Linux has a handful of weird features that are only supported for
> > backwards compatibility. The big one is the x86_64 vsyscall
Hi all-
Linux has a handful of weird features that are only supported for
backwards compatibility. The big one is the x86_64 vsyscall page, but
uselib probably belongs on the list, too, and we might end up with
more at some point.
I'd like to add a way that new programs can turn these features o
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
>> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
>> a variable or passing
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it. How c
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux'
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> I'd say the most natural API for this would
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
>> f{fixed,call-{used,saved}}-REG in target attribute.
>
> Either that or
>
> __attribute__((fixed(rbp,rcx),used(rax,rbx),saved(r
Hi all-
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before calling C functions.
This works, but it makes the code a huge mess. I'd rather save all
regs in asm and the
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 08:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Other way around: a *library* that wants to use exception handling
>> can't do so safely without the cooperation, or at least understanding,
>> of the main
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 05:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM, David Daney
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2013 05:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 05:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Windows has a feature that I've wanted on Linux forever: stack-based
>> (i.e. scoped) exception handling. The upshot is that you can do,
>> roughly, this
Windows has a feature that I've wanted on Linux forever: stack-based
(i.e. scoped) exception handling. The upshot is that you can do,
roughly, this (pseudocode):
int callback(...)
{
/* Called if code_that_may_fault faults. May return "unwind to
landing pad", "propagate the fault", or "fixup an
This code warns (incorrectly, but that's a whole separate issue):
double foo(double a, double b)
{
bool option1_ok, option2_ok;
double option1, option2;
if (a == 0) {
option1_ok = false;
} else {
option1 = b;
option1_ok = true;
}
if (a == 1) {
option2_ok = false;
} el
On 09/12/2011 05:30 PM, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2011, at 19:19, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> lets say the order of the writes turns out to be 2,4... is it possible for
>> both writes to be travelling around some bus and have thread 4 actually read
>> the second one first, followed by the fi
22 matches
Mail list logo
