Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "34c".
Did you mean:
34
2013 Sep 12
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Detect Haswell subarchitecture (i.e. using -march=native)
...sembly there's something wrong with SI that is not getting saved anywhere after CPUID and 0x20 bit test before it gets overwritten by LEA.
332: mov eax,0x7
337: mov rsi,rbx
33a: cpuid
33c: xchg rsi,rbx
33f: and esi,0x20
342: shr esi,0x5
345: lea rbp,[rip+0x0] # 34c <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xbc>
34c: lea r12,[rip+0x0] # 353 <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xc3>
353: cmove rbp,r12
357: lea rdi,[rsp+0x188]
35f: lea rsi,[rip+0x0] # 366 <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xd6>
In both other cases (2) & (3) SI is saved...
2013 Sep 13
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Detect Haswell subarchitecture (i.e. using -march=native)
...etting saved anywhere after CPUID and 0x20 bit test before it gets
> overwritten by LEA.
>
> 332: mov eax,0x7
> 337: mov rsi,rbx
> 33a: cpuid
> 33c: xchg rsi,rbx
> 33f: and esi,0x20
> 342: shr esi,0x5
> 345: lea rbp,[rip+0x0] # 34c
> <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xbc>
> 34c: lea r12,[rip+0x0] # 353
> <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xc3>
> 353: cmove rbp,r12
> 357: lea rdi,[rsp+0x188]
> 35f: lea rsi,[rip+0x0] # 366
> <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xd6>
>...
2013 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Detect Haswell subarchitecture (i.e. using -march=native)
Actually there is no miscompile there as esi isn't needed. The flags are
which the cmove is using.
342: shr esi,0x5
345: lea rbp,[rip+0x0] # 34c <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xbc>
34c: lea r12,[rip+0x0] # 353 <llvm::sys::getHostCPUName()+0xc3>
353: cmove rbp,r12 <- this is dependent on the flags from the shift.
I think your real problem is that garbage went into ECX instead of 0 and
caused cpuid to return 0...
2013 Sep 12
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Detect Haswell subarchitecture (i.e. using -march=native)
Hi Adam,
> OK. I know the reason you cannot reproduce it, before posting
> the patch I've decided to check for AVX before checking AVX2,
> just not to cpuid AVX2 when we don't have AVX1 anyway.
I suspect it was also incompetence on my part. Given the differences
I'm seeing now I can't believe there'd be *no* difference in my tests
if I'd done them properly.
2013 Sep 12
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Detect Haswell subarchitecture (i.e. using -march=native)
> That's far more worrying to me than not being able to detect Haswell.
> I can't reproduce the problem here at the moment: both debug and
> release builds give identical assembly for Host.cpp.
OK. I know the reason you cannot reproduce it, before posting the patch I've decided to check for AVX before checking AVX2, just not to cpuid AVX2 when we don't have AVX1 anyway.
2007 Apr 18
3
[Bridge] Re: do_IRQ: stack overflow: 872..
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:05:59 +0000
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 08:50 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's not really an oops, just a warning that stack space got quiet
> > tight.
> >
> > The problem seems to be that the br netfilter code is nesting far too
> > deeply and recursing several times. Looks like a design
2009 Jul 23
1
[PATCH server] changes required for fedora rawhide inclusion.
...b#*iCro>V13w>DXRL&YsTuB6T*
z^@bOUcZveAmf7f$hQy_u$9CaznG1HN75$&$SK)`g<hoJ-tvUp(qU+(FY-Qd18np@&
z+o<P<?WO-Zp|zC&zQG!?Q?9bz8Ahs2e}kRTxmEt+=O5(%>`REuI(o6HC!f^Af at 6H_
z4drwj6rD{9dz+rc2fva<)Q45CwZGkUjV{SE(|^+XbuTyma`N~)H3GT2kIA<OoE at zM
zt!divjst)W at VRE43|($lIJ34Ccumb!Ht;U=dAok at uU85pptKAe6VpO<iNAEFXavpD
zZB*Z{b5q6xV>lTi5qb6X8u!(!6roB4W5qhULfgQM2;lfdfVu9K!T36H>R8F3>x+Gj
zO7`k?z;e_~`^Z-tflhnVWY_oyzV~;`bprk1^xEsO8(Lmh0aAnv5WR_nQqvc=b<q#F
zcO`6=#f)44L+XbmJHwFBeos?Su~7TldVRZxV`A?jQY*E5JWV6X5Flm%EyPt+_X0gn
zn^~r#^OjCo4{>z@=Y><jB$J+M*LyKc...