Re: pushal & ebp

2002-04-25 Thread Kenneth Culver
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Kenneth Culver writes: > > > I just looked at the NetBSD code & like linux, they use a macro which > > > individually pushes the registers onto the stack rather than using > > > pushal (which I assume is the same as what intel calls PUSHAD in t

Re: pushal & ebp

2002-04-25 Thread John Baldwin
On 25-Apr-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Kenneth Culver writes: > > > I just looked at the NetBSD code & like linux, they use a macro which > > > individually pushes the registers onto the stack rather than using > > > pushal (which I assume is the same as what intel calls PUSHAD in their >

Re: pushal & ebp

2002-04-25 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Kenneth Culver writes: > > I just looked at the NetBSD code & like linux, they use a macro which > > individually pushes the registers onto the stack rather than using > > pushal (which I assume is the same as what intel calls PUSHAD in their > > x86 instruction set ref. manual). > > > > Ne

Re: pushal & ebp

2002-04-25 Thread Kenneth Culver
> I just looked at the NetBSD code & like linux, they use a macro which > individually pushes the registers onto the stack rather than using > pushal (which I assume is the same as what intel calls PUSHAD in their > x86 instruction set ref. manual). > > NetBSD stopped using pushal in 1994 in rev 1

pushal & ebp

2002-04-25 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Kenneth Culver writes: > So, as far as I can tell, this version of glibc is doing the Right Thing, > and the ebp register is getting messed up somewhere along the line in > either the assembly code that handles the 0x80 trap in FreeBSD, or in > syscall2 (I think it's probably the asm that han