On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 10:51:40PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 0x8048494 <_hurd_stack_setup>: push %ebp
> 0x8048495 <_hurd_stack_setup+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
> 0x8048497 <_hurd_stack_setup+3>: push %ebx
> 0x8048498 <_hurd_stack_setup+4>: sub $0x24,%esp
> 0x804849b <_hurd_stack_setup+7>: mov 0x8(%ebp),%eax
So far I have been able to reduce the offending code, by trial-and-error, to
this:
extern void __mach_init (void);
void
_hurd_stack_setup (int argc __attribute__ ((unused)), ...)
{
void doinit (int *data)
{
*--data = (&argc)[-1];
}
__mach_init ();
}
Which produces:
_hurd_stack_setup:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
subl $8, %esp
movl 8(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, -4(%ebp)
call __mach_init
leave
ret
Which has a movl 8(%ebp), %eax, just like the one above. This is related to
the function-within-function. For example:
extern void __mach_init (void);
void
_hurd_stack_setup (int argc __attribute__ ((unused)), ...)
{
int *data;
*--data = (&argc)[-1];
__mach_init ();
}
Has:
_hurd_stack_setup:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
subl $8, %esp
movl 4(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, -4(%edx)
call __mach_init
leave
ret
BTW, the corresponding glibc-2.2.4/gcc2.95 code for the above code (function
in function) is
_hurd_stack_setup:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
subl $24,%esp
leal 8(%ebp),%eax
movl %eax,-4(%ebp)
call __mach_init
leave
ret
Mmmh. It does the same derefernce 8(%ebp). Maybe the code is right and the
problem is even before that?
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
