Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "ltmp22".
Did you mean:
ltmp2
2013 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] Case sensitive .macros for llvm-mc and arithmetic in expressions
...m 0, 5
#---
Results in the following error:
sum.s:9:1: error: invalid operand for instruction
sum 0, 5
I have attached a patch that might be all that is needed to fix case
sensitivity.
In another case there is an expression like this:
#---
.Ltmp1:
.long 0xdeadbeef
.Ltmp7:
.long 0xdeadbeef
.Ltmp22:
.long (.Ltmp7-.Ltmp1) - .Ltmp22
#---
The above results in this error:
LLVM ERROR: expected relocatable expression
The above seems like it should work, and if .Ltmp22 is replaced by a
number it does.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux...
2018 Feb 09
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...pic_b.i
> http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.noretpoline.s
> http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.retpoline.s
>
> I don't *think* I screwed up copying and pasting the retpoline thunk.
So, looking at the retpoline version...
gsi_base is in %edi, and gets spilled to the stack at about .Ltmp22
which is at line 412 right after the printk call:
.Ltmp22:
addl $12, %esp
movl %edi, 12(%esp) # 4-byte Spill
At .Ltmp28 we then call __x86_indirect_thunk which *does* look like
it's doing the right thing (and using the LLVM-emitted thunk instead of
my own behaves the same; I don...
2018 Feb 09
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 10:36 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Did you get anywhere with the function attribute? Having isolated the
> next boot failure to "it goes away if I compile io_apic.c without
> retpoline", bisecting it per-function would help to further delay the
> bit where I actually have to start *thinking*...
It's mp_register_ioapic(), and only when
2018 Feb 09
3
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...u.se/io_apic_b.noretpoline.s
> > http://david.woodhou.se/io_apic_b.retpoline.s
> >
> > I don't *think* I screwed up copying and pasting the retpoline thunk.
>
> So, looking at the retpoline version...
>
> gsi_base is in %edi, and gets spilled to the stack at about .Ltmp22
> which is at line 412 right after the printk call:
>
> .Ltmp22:
> addl $12, %esp
> movl %edi, 12(%esp) # 4-byte Spill
>
> At .Ltmp28 we then call __x86_indirect_thunk which *does* look like
> it's doing the right thing (and using the LLVM-...
2012 Mar 20
0
[LLVMdev] Runtime linker issue wtih X11R6 on i386 with -O3 optimization
....cfi_def_cfa_register %ebp
pushl %ebx
subl $20, %esp
.Ltmp20:
.cfi_offset %ebx, -12
calll .L1$pb
.L1$pb:
popl %eax
.Ltmp21:
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_+(.Ltmp21-.L1$pb), %eax
movl 8(%ebp), %ecx
leal .L.str1 at GOTOFF(%eax), %edx
movl %ecx, -8(%ebp)
.loc 1 19 2 prologue_end # a.c:19:2
.Ltmp22:
movl -8(%ebp), %ecx
movl %edx, (%esp)
movl %ecx, 4(%esp)
movl %eax, %ebx
calll printf at PLT
.loc 1 20 1 # a.c:20:1
movl %eax, -12(%ebp) # 4-byte Spill
addl $20, %esp
popl %ebx
popl %ebp
ret
.Ltmp23:
.Ltmp24:
.size meh, .Ltmp24-meh
.Lfunc_end1:
.Ltmp25:
.cfi_e...