search for: tm_nest_level

On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > Which one is correct ? > - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > or > - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx > or > - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > I believe this is initial exec and so from: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf it would be movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > Otherwise, Is there a way to remo...

On 07/07/2010 08:20 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > >> Which one is correct ? >> - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> or >> - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx >> or >> - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> > > I believe this is initial exec and so from: > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf > > it would be movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF...

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > >> Which one is correct ? >> - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> or >> - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx >> or >> - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> > > I believe this is initial exec and so from: > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf > > it would be movl tm_nest_level at T...

...works with the testcase but the generated code is > wrong if you try to compile it with "as". > > $ as select.s > select.s: Assembler messages: > select.s:8: Error: relocated field and relocation type differ in signedness > > select.s > 8: movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > 9: movq %fs:0, %rax Which one is correct ? - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx or - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx or - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx Otherwise, Is there a way to remove this $ character? I found that it is here in lib/Target/X86/A...

...> Thanks! > > -eric Actually, now llc works with the testcase but the generated code is wrong if you try to compile it with "as". $ as select.s select.s: Assembler messages: select.s:8: Error: relocated field and relocation type differ in signedness select.s 8: movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx 9: movq %fs:0, %rax This is why I set MOV64ri32 and not MOV64ri64i32 in my patch (thus this is why I asked for correctness). Thank you, Patrick Marlier.

On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > Hello, > > This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk : > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 > > The workaround I found is to add this : > > Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td > =================================================================== > --- lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td

Hello, This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk : http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 The workaround I found is to add this : Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td =================================================================== --- lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td (revision 105882) +++ lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td (working copy) @@ -1832,6 +1832,8 @@