Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "67h".
Did you mean:
67
2007 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
...32-bit LEA on x86-64?
> Could this be the problem? (iirc, it wants you to use eax = LEA
> rsi, rdi)
I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's
perfectly legal. Both
leal (%esi,%edi), %eax
leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to
the 32-bit address size.
This does point to a performance problem in the 3 address conversion
code (which I will fix), but it should not cause the assembler to
complain.
Evan
>
> -Chris
>
>>> I also see warnings like this:
>>>
>>> [x86_64-m...
2007 Oct 10
2
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote:
> I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's
> perfectly legal. Both
> leal (%esi,%edi), %eax
> leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
> are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to
> the 32-bit address size.
>
> This does point to a performance problem in the 3 address conversion
> code (which I will fix), but it should not cause the assembler to
> complain.
Thanks for fixing this. IIRC, some versions of GAS don't support the less
efficient...
2007 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote:
>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s: Assembler messages:
>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s:36: Error: `(%esi,%edi)' is not a
>> valid 64
>> bit base/index expression
>
> Looks like llvm is generating invalid x86-64 assembly. Can you add a -
> emit-llvm to the xgcc line and generate a reproducible test case?
> Please
2003 Mar 12
1
gpedit.msc as centralized policy for 2k/xp clients in domain
I found this from
http://charon.minilab.bdeb.qc.ca/anonym/nt/2000/ads/TTGW2KGP_Vol1through4.pdf
I would like to figure out how to do this gpedit.msc+AD+gpc+gpt magic for
win2k/xp with linux+samba(2.2/3.0/tng)+openldap and is it possible at all?
Thanks.
Although GPOs provide significantly more policy features than NT 4.0 System
Policy provides,
GPOs are stored and processed differently than NT
2007 Oct 10
0
[LLVMdev] Can't bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.0 for x84_64
...is Lattner wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote:
> > I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's
> > perfectly legal. Both
> > leal (%esi,%edi), %eax
> > leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax
> > are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to
> > the 32-bit address size.
> >
> > This does point to a performance problem in the 3 address conversion
> > code (which I will fix), but it should not cause the assembler to
> > complain.
>
> Thanks for fixing this. IIRC, some versions of GAS don...