On 4 July 2014 18:59, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 4 July 2014 17:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 04:51:31PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 4 July 2014 17:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD
> >> instructions is
> >> allowed, and should adhe
On 4 July 2014 17:45, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD instructions
>> is
>> allowed, and should adhere to the AAPCS64 calling convention, which states
>> that
>> 'only the b
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD instructions is
> allowed, and should adhere to the AAPCS64 calling convention, which states
> that
> 'only the bottom 64 bits of each value stored in registers v8-v15 n
According to the UEFI spec section 2.3.6.4, the use of FP/SIMD instructions is
allowed, and should adhere to the AAPCS64 calling convention, which states that
'only the bottom 64 bits of each value stored in registers v8-v15 need to be
preserved' (section 5.1.2).
This applies equally to UEFI Runti
