[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinkCEoX1b71-G94NMpARyvaJ37etE93iTm3EMf7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:50:40 -0800
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
x32-abi@...glegroups.com, GCC Development <gcc@....gnu.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> a. the int $0x80 instruction is much slower than syscall. An actual
>> i386 process can use the syscall instruction which is disambiguated
>> by the CPU based on mode, but an x32 process is in the same CPU mode
>> as a normal 64-bit process.
>
> So set a flag, whoopee
>
>> b. 64-bit arguments have to be split between two registers for the
>> i386 entry points, requiring user-space stubs.
>
> Diddums. Given you've yet to explain why everyone desperately needs this
> extra interface why do we care ?
>
>> All in all, the cost of an extra system call table is quite modest.
>
> And the cost of not doing it is a gloriously wonderful zero. Yo've still
> not explained the justification or what large number of apps are going to
> use it.
>
> It's a simple question - why do we care, why do we want the overhead and
> the hassle, what do users get in return ?
>
The real question is if we need to use ia32. If the answer is yes, then
x32 provides the benefit of ia32 with register extended to 64bit plus 8
more registers as well as IP relative address.
--
H.J.
--
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