[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1031613720.1496.1555613900993.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:58:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <codonell@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
heiko carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
gor <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup
and thread creation (v7)
----- On Apr 4, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Paul Burton paul.burton@...s.com wrote:
[...]
>> 2a. A uncommon TRAP hopefully with some immediate data encoded (maybe uncommon)
>
> Our break instruction has a 19b immediate in nanoMIPS (20b for microMIPS
> & classic MIPS) so that could be something like:
>
> break 0x7273 # ASCII 'rs'
>
Hi Paul,
I like this uncommon break instruction as signature choice.
However, if I try to compile assembler with a break 0x7273 instruction
with mips64 and mips32 toolchains (gcc version 8.2.0 (Ubuntu 8.2.0-1ubuntu2~18.04))
I get:
/tmp/ccVh9F7T.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccVh9F7T.s:24: Error: operand 1 out of range `break 0x7273'
It works up to the value 0x3FF, which seems to use the top 10
code bits:
a: 03ff 0007 break 0x3ff
Would a "break 0x350" be a good choice as well ?
Any idea why 0x7273 is not accepted by my assembler ?
I also tried crafting the assembler with values between 0x3FF and 0x7273
in the 20 code bits. It seems fine from an objdump perspective:
".long 0x03FFFC7\n\t"
generates:
10: 003f ffc7 break 0x3f,0x3ff
What I don't understand is why the instruction generated by my
toolchain ends with the last 6 bits "000111", whereas the mips32
instruction set specifies break as ending with "001101" [1].
What am I missing ?
Also, the nanomips break code [2] has a completely different
instruction layout. Should we use a different signature when
compiling for nanomips ? What #ifdef should we use ? Do I
need a special toolchain to generate nanomips binaries ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
[1] http://hades.mech.northwestern.edu/images/1/16/MIPS32_Architecture_Volume_II-A_Instruction_Set.pdf
[2] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/downloads-mips/I7200/I7200+product+launch/MIPS_nanomips32_ISA_TRM_01_01_MD01247.pdf
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists