[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52007B70.9070504@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:28:32 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections
On 08/05/2013 09:14 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>> For unconditional jmp that should be pretty safe barring any fundamental
>> changes to the instruction set, in which case we can enable it as
>> needed, but for extra robustness it probably should skip prefix bytes.
>
> On x86-32, some prefixes are actually meaningful. AFAIK, the 0x66 prefix
> is used for:
>
> E9 cw jmp rel16 relative jump, only in 32-bit
>
> Other prefixes can probably be safely skipped.
>
Yes. Some of them are used as hints or for MPX.
> Another question is whether anything prevents the assembler from
> generating a jump near (absolute indirect), or far jump. The code above
> seems to assume that we have either a short or near relative jump.
Absolutely something prevents! It would be a very serious error for the
assembler to generate such instructions.
-hpa
--
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