On 07/01/2015 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
>> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
>> a variable or passing as an argu
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
>> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
>> a variable or passing
On 07/01/2015 01:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
a variable or passing as an argument)
On 07/01/2015 11:27 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We curr
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:35:16PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Actually it raise a question for me. If we describe that a function
> clobbers more than calling convention and then use it as a value (assigning
> a variable or passing as an argument) and loosing a track of it and than
> call it. How c
On 07/01/2015 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
(I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do this for the syscall bodies
themselves. I want to do it for the entry and exit helpers, so we'd
still lose the five cycles in the full fast
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:23:17AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >>(I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do this for the syscall bodies
> >>themselves. I want to do it for the entry and exit helpers, so we'd
> >>still lose the five cycles in the full fast-path case, but we'd do
> >>better in
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
> On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
>>> We currently have a nasty optimization
On 06/30/2015 05:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before ca
On 06/30/2015 04:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/30/2015 02:55 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wro
On 06/30/2015 02:55 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd say the most natural API
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
f{fixed,call-{used,s
On 06/30/2015 02:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
>>> f{fixed,call-{used,saved}}-REG in target attribute.
>>
>> Either that or
>>
>>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
>> f{fixed,call-{used,saved}}-REG in target attribute.
>
> Either that or
>
> __attribute__((fixed(rbp,rcx),used(rax,rbx),saved(r
On 06/30/2015 02:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd say the most natural API for this would be to allow
> f{fixed,call-{used,saved}}-REG in target attribute.
Either that or
__attribute__((fixed(rbp,rcx),used(rax,rbx),saved(r11)))
... just to be shorter. Either way, I would consider this
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:22:33PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
> We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
> rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before calling C functions.
> This works, but it make
On 06/30/2015 02:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
> We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
> rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before calling C functions.
> This works, but it makes the
Hi all-
I'm working on a massive set of cleanups to Linux's syscall handling.
We currently have a nasty optimization in which we don't save rbx,
rbp, r12, r13, r14, and r15 on x86_64 before calling C functions.
This works, but it makes the code a huge mess. I'd rather save all
regs in asm and the
19 matches
Mail list logo
