:
:But if gcc breaks that assumption, that implies it would break
:alloca(), and presumably they wouldn't do that.
:
:Tony.
:--
:f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
:"Dead! And yet there he stands!"
alloca() is a GCC internal function, not a piece of __asm code.
Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:As long as gcc uses %ebp to address local variables and functoin parameters
>:rather than %esp you should be fine. %esp will be preserved, but if %esp is
>:for some odd reason used to address a variable during the C code, you are hosed.
>
>I strongly r
:
:foo = save_intr(); disable_intr(); .. restore_intr()
:has 4 extra memory accesses.
UGh. I put my foot in it. Let me qualify my remark... memory
accesses that cause an L1 cache miss are a problem. Memory accesses
to locations written to by other cpu's are a problem. Memory acc
:
:>
:> Since all I WANT to do is
:> pushf
:> disable intr
:> fiddle
:> popf (chache hit)
:>
:> I am annoyed by the fact that I have all those extra bus cycles going on.
:> I can live with it for development but it still annoys me.
:
:You haven't yet explained how you plan to disable interrupt
>
> Since all I WANT to do is
> pushf
> disable intr
> fiddle
> popf (chache hit)
>
> I am annoyed by the fact that I have all those extra bus cycles going on.
> I can live with it for development but it still annoys me.
You haven't yet explained how you plan to disable interrupts on the other
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :As long as gcc uses %ebp to address local variables and functoin parameters
> :rather than %esp you should be fine. %esp will be preserved, but if %esp is
> :for some odd reason used to address a variable during the C code, you are hosed.
>
> I strongly recommend aga
Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to write some experimental mutex operations similar to those
> > in -current, but to do differnt things (e.g. a read/write lock)
> > however, I am having some problems with the __asm stuff.
>
> Julian; Wheels were invented around 1500BC. We don't need to go
:As long as gcc uses %ebp to address local variables and functoin parameters
:rather than %esp you should be fine. %esp will be preserved, but if %esp is
:for some odd reason used to address a variable during the C code, you are hosed.
I strongly recommend against making assumptions about GC
> I'm trying to write some experimental mutex operations similar to those
> in -current, but to do differnt things (e.g. a read/write lock)
> however, I am having some problems with the __asm stuff.
Julian; Wheels were invented around 1500BC. We don't need to go through
all that again.
--
.
On 08-Dec-00 Julian Elischer wrote:
> I'm trying to write some experimental mutex operations similar to those
> in -current, but to do differnt things (e.g. a read/write lock)
> however, I am having some problems with the __asm stuff.
>
> What I want to do is to define some operations that wil
:I'm trying to write some experimental mutex operations similar to those
:in -current, but to do differnt things (e.g. a read/write lock)
:however, I am having some problems with the __asm stuff.
:
:What I want to do is to define some operations that will
:assemble down to:
: pushfl
:
11 matches
Mail list logo
