search for: e19253

...ten has length specifiers for instructions. The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf That does raise a clarifying question here. Is the code you’re interested in using Intel or AT&T syntax? Also note that the question isn’t whether we should support the btr/bts instructions. We absolutely must (and do). The question is whether we are properly handling...

...the normal "ret" instruction in the > Intel manual, which makes it mostly undocumented. Are you sure about that? I don't recall ever seeing retl before. A while back a reference for AT&T was mentioned and, as I recall, this was the best anyone had <http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf>. It contains no mention of retl. This seems to be the commit that added support for it <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2010-May/003229.html>. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between retl/retq. x86 has 4 return instruction (c...

...osbach at apple.com> wrote: > The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. > > The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf I'm not sure I'd use the documentation for the Solaris assembler as authoritative for AT&T syntax, but page 17 does say that if the suffix is omitted it defaults to long. However, that isn't my experience with gas which uses register operands to disambigua...

You are right ! But it's possible to create a root kerberos principal like here : http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/816-4557/fgohx/ But I can't get this work with a samba kerberos realm.... 2015-10-09 22:32 GMT+02:00 buhorojo <buhorojo.lcb at gmail.com>: > On 09/10/15 08:59, Prunk Dump wrote: >> >> >> -> on the server >> $ ls -al /srv/nfs4/myshare/testfile >>...

...ple.com> wrote: >> The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. >> >> The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf > > I'm not sure I'd use the documentation for the Solaris assembler as authoritative for AT&T syntax, but page 17 does say that if the suffix is omitted it defaults to long. Yeah, me either. That’s part of why I’m asking for references. I’d love to know...

Hallo. Filesystem quotas used to work well under Solaris 9 and ufs filesystems on the Sparc platform even with two rules for the folders in the users home directories /home/group/user and the separate filesystem /var/mail holding the inboxes: plugin { quota = fs:Home-Verzeichnis:noenforcing quota2 = fs:INBOX:noenforcing:mount=/var/mail } Since we upgraded last year to Solaris 10

...en has length specifiers for instructions. The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf That does raise a clarifying question here. Is the code you’re interested in using Intel or AT&T syntax? Also note that the question isn’t whether we should support the btr/bts instructions. We absolutely must (and do). The question is whether we are properly handling...

...> wrote: > > The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction > references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the > register variants. > > The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf > > > I'm not sure I'd use the documentation for the Solaris assembler as > authoritative for AT&T syntax, but page 17 does say that if the suffix is > omitted it defaults to long. > > > Yeah, me either. That’s part of why I’m asking for...

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >> behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? > > Where are the authoritative

Jim Grosbach wrote: > To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously > unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not > behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? Where are the authoritative instruction set pages? If such a thing were readily available, why are there gaps in the current implementation? A

...btr matches btrl, and bts matches btsl in both cases: $ as --32 -a in.s $ as --64 -a in.s To avoid giving readers the illusion of such an inference, and for clarity, change btr/bts back to btrl/btsl. Also, llvm-mc refuses to disambiguate btr/bts automatically. [1]: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy at goop.org> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak at linux.intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> Cc: Eli Friedman <el...

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert neither in llvm nor in x86 nor in IEEE standard for floating point numbers, thus any of my following assumptions maybe wrong. If so, I will be grateful if you clarify me what's goes wrong. But if my guesses are correct we possibly have a bug in fp arithmetics on x86. I have the following ir: @g = constant i64 1 define i32 @main() { %gval = load

...and for > clarity, change btr/bts back to btrl/btsl. Also, llvm-mc refuses to > disambiguate btr/bts automatically. That sounds reasonable for all other operations because it makes a real semantic difference, but overly strict for bit operations. J > [1]: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf > > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy at goop.org> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak at linux.intel.com> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.d...

Recently LLD made it to the front page of HN (yay!): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13670458 This comment about the Solaris linker surprised me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672364 """ > To me, the biggest advantage is cross compiling Not all system linkers have this problem. For example, Solaris ld(1) is perfectly capable of cross-linking any valid ELF file.

Hello samba team ! I have some NFS4 exports managed by a Samba's Kerberos realm. All the standard user accesses work fine. I try now to setup an NFS4 root access to administer the share from another server (the two host are DC, one PDC and one SDC). But I have trouble understanding the kerberos/principals layer. ------------ Actually I do ------------- -> on the server I create an nfs

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13317 Bug ID: 13317 Summary: rsync returns success when target filesystem is full Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: x64 OS: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org