On 25/02/2021 01.49, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:07:36 PM UTC-5
stewart.h...@dornerworks.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 4:38:02 PM UTC-5
jwkoz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:42:33 AM UTC-5
On 25/02/2021 00.07, 'Stewart Hildebrand' via OSv Development wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 4:38:02 PM UTC-5 jwkoz...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:42:33 AM UTC-5
stewart.h...@dornerworks.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at
On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:30:31 AM UTC+2 jwkoz...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think I have an explanation of what is going on. Before I present it let
> me recap the calling convention for aarch64:
>
> Caller:
>
>1. If we need any of x0-x18 registers, save them. They are corruptible.
>
For comparison fragment of zcopy_tx in release loader.elf until a call to
eventfd which is after new:
Dump of assembler code for function zcopy_tx(int, zmsghdr*):
0x40100da0 <+0>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-144]!
0x40100da4 <+4>: mov x29, sp
0x40100da8
On 11/02/2021 07.42, Waldek Kozaczuk wrote:
Apart from the TLS issue reported here OSv can be built in the aarch64
debug mode.
Some of the tests pass as well (as on release) but there are some that
seem to fail in a similar way due to possibly wrong compiled code in
kernel possibly due to
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:19 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:43 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 2:33:16 PM UTC-5 Nadav Har'El wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be pushing registers on the stack here. Where is this stack?
>>> In x86, we had
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:43 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 2:33:16 PM UTC-5 Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
>>
>> You seem to be pushing registers on the stack here. Where is this stack?
>> In x86, we had separate stacks for exceptions, for nested exceptions, and
>>
On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 2:33:16 PM UTC-5 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Waldek Kozaczuk
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:06 AM Nadav Har'El wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:42 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
>>> wrote:
>>>
#1
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 6:24 PM Waldek Kozaczuk
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:06 AM Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:42 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> #1 0x10037954 in test_bsd_tcp1::tcp_server (this=0x206ff988)
>>> at
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:06 AM Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:42 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
> wrote:
>
>>
>> #1 0x10037954 in test_bsd_tcp1::tcp_server (this=0x206ff988)
>> at /home/wkozaczuk/projects/osv/tests/tst-bsd-tcp1-zsnd.cc:114
>>
>> 114 int
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:42 AM Waldek Kozaczuk
wrote:
>
> #1 0x10037954 in test_bsd_tcp1::tcp_server (this=0x206ff988)
> at /home/wkozaczuk/projects/osv/tests/tst-bsd-tcp1-zsnd.cc:114
>
> 114 int bytes2 = zcopy_tx(client_s, );
>
> (gdb) p client_s
>
> $1 = 5
>
> (gdb) p
Apart from the TLS issue reported here OSv can be built in the aarch64
debug mode.
Some of the tests pass as well (as on release) but there are some that seem
to fail in a similar way due to possibly wrong compiled code in kernel
possibly due to -O0.
Here is one example:
./scripts/run.py -e
12 matches
Mail list logo
