[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0702091842450.31955@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:45:54 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" <linux-os@...logic.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb
On Feb 9 2007 08:16, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Feb 8 2007 16:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>> Further, giving again answer to the question whether they generate
>> signed or unsigned comparisons: Have you ever seen a computer which
>> addresses memory with negative numbers? Since the answer is most likely
>> no, signed comparisons would
>
>Yes, most all do. Indexed memory operands are signed displacements. See
>page 2-16, Intel486 Microprocessor Programmer's Reference Manual. This
I was referring to "absolute memory", not the offset magic that assembler
allows. After all, (reg+relativeOffset) will yield an absolute address.
What I was out at: for machines that have more than 2 GB of memory, you
don't call the address that is given by 0x80000000U actually "byte
-2147483648", but "byte 2147483648".
>gets hidden by higher-level languages such as 'C'. It is also non-obvious
>when using the AT&T (GNU) assembly language. However, the Intel documentation
>shows it clearly:
> MOV AL, [EBX+0xFFFFFFFF] ; -1
It can be debated what exactly this is... negative offset or "using
overflow to get where we want".
Jan
--
ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists