On 16.03.2023 10:52, Oleksii wrote:
>>>
>>> Could you please explain what is x86 section asserts?
>>
>> If you look at the bottom of x86's xen.lds.S you'll find a number of
>> assertions, among them one towards .got being empty. Some of the
>> sections checked there may indeed not be applicable on
> >
> > Could you please explain what is x86 section asserts?
>
> If you look at the bottom of x86's xen.lds.S you'll find a number of
> assertions, among them one towards .got being empty. Some of the
> sections checked there may indeed not be applicable on arbitrary
> architectures, but I think
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 09:45 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.03.2023 08:42, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 21:12 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 15/03/2023 7:59 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> > > > > I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instructio
On 16.03.2023 08:42, Oleksii wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 21:12 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 15/03/2023 7:59 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed,
and it
looks like it is translated as I ex
On 15.03.2023 19:25, Oleksii wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relat
On 15.03.2023 19:33, Oleksii wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relat
On 15.03.2023 19:23, Oleksii wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:59 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
>>> I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed, and
>>> it
>>> looks like it is translated as I expect to auipc/addi pair:
>>> ffe01066: 0002
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 21:12 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/03/2023 7:59 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> > > I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed,
> > > and it
> > > looks like it is translated as I expect to auipc/addi pair:
> > > f
On 15/03/2023 7:59 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
>> I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed, and it
>> looks like it is translated as I expect to auipc/addi pair:
>> ffe01066: 00027517 auipc a0,0x27
>> ffe0106a: f9a50513 addi a0,a
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
> > > >
> > > > Pseudoinstruct
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
> > > >
> > > > Pseudoinstruct
On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 08:59 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> > I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed, and
> > it
> > looks like it is translated as I expect to auipc/addi pair:
> > ffe01066: 00027517 auipc a0,0x27
> > ffe0106a
On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> I checked in Linux binary how 'la' instruction is transformed, and it
> looks like it is translated as I expect to auipc/addi pair:
> ffe01066: 00027517 auipc a0,0x27
> ffe0106a: f9a50513 addi a0,a0,-102 # ffe28000
>
>
> I checked comp
On 14.03.2023 21:16, Oleksii wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
>>>
>>> Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
>>> 'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depe
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 17:09 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
> >
> > Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
> > 'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depends on the .option directive: nopic an
On 14/03/2023 4:00 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
>
> Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
> 'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depends on the .option directive: nopic and pic.
>
> Right now, 'la' transforms to 'auipc/l{w|d}', which in c
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:00:41PM +0200, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
>
> Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
> 'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depends on the .option directive: nopic and pic.
>
> Right now, 'la' transforms to 'auip
On 14.03.2023 17:00, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
>
> Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
> 'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depends on the .option directive: nopic and pic.
>
> Right now, 'la' transforms to 'auipc/l{w|d}',
I'm afrai
The patch is needed to keep all addresses PC-relative.
Pseudoinstruction 'la' can be transformed to 'auipc/addi' or
'auipc/l{w|d}'. It depends on the .option directive: nopic and pic.
Right now, 'la' transforms to 'auipc/l{w|d}', which in case of
cpu0_boot_stack[] will lead to the usage of _GLOBA
19 matches
Mail list logo
