On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:32:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> > > > stack
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:32:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> > > stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> > > pointer
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing below this
>>> frame. If we don't have a frame, CALL instruction will smash whatever
>>> RSP happens to point to. Compiler doesn't have to setup RSP to point
>>> below use
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing bel
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing below this
> >> frame. If we don't have a frame, CALL instruction wil
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing below this
>> frame. If we don't have a frame, CALL instruction will smash whatever
>> RSP happens to point to. Compiler doesn't have to set
On 09/20/17 10:38, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> I think we need just the frame itself and RSP pointing below this
> frame. If we don't have a frame, CALL instruction will smash whatever
> RSP happens to point to. Compiler doesn't have to setup RSP to point
> below used part of stack in leaf functions.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:45:28PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> > stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> > pointer is set up firs
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:32:43AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> > stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> > pointer is set up first:
> >
> > static in
On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> pointer is set up first:
>
> static inline void foo()
> {
> register void *__sp asm(_ASM_SP);
> asm(
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/19/17 11:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
>> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
>> pointer is set up first:
>>
>> static inline void foo(
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:25:59PM -0700, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Alexander Potapenko
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Josh Poimboeuf
> > wrote:
> >> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> >> stack pointer as a
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:45:28PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> pointer is set up first:
>
> static inline void foo()
> {
> register void *__sp asm
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
>> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
>> pointer is set up first:
>>
>> st
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
> stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
> pointer is set up first:
>
> static inline void foo()
> {
> register void *__sp asm(_ASM_
For inline asm statements which have a CALL instruction, we list the
stack pointer as a constraint to convince GCC to ensure the frame
pointer is set up first:
static inline void foo()
{
register void *__sp asm(_ASM_SP);
asm("call bar" : "+r" (__sp))
}
Unfortunately, that pa
18 matches
Mail list logo
