similar to: X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?"

2016 Feb 27
0
X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?
I think this is really because the assembler doesn't run layout and relaxation when not dumping to an object file. I disassembled an object file with this same test case and got e9 00 00 00 00. On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jun Koi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently X86 assembler seems to always compile "jmp _label" as a SHORT
2016 Feb 27
2
Fwd: X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?
> On Feb 27, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jun Koi via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The problem is that llvm-mc always compiles "jmp" this as short jump, no matter where the target is. Hence my question. I dont know if there is any way to change this behavior. Looks like a bug to me so far. It isn't. It's just created some assembly which, when assembled, may
2016 Feb 27
1
X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?
Is there any reason to prefer a NEAR jump to a SHORT jump if the assembler deemed it is okay to keep it as a SHORT one? The only reason you may want to have it as a NEAR jump is because you need to alter the target of this jump to another address which may be out of a byte range. Regards On 27/02/2016 06:00:54, Jun Koi via llvm-dev (llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org) wrote: > Hi, > >
2016 Feb 27
0
Fwd: X86 assembler cannot jump NEAR?
On Feb 28, 2016 12:08 AM, "Stephen Checkoway" <s at pahtak.org> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jun Koi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The problem is that llvm-mc always compiles "jmp" this as short jump, no matter where the target is. Hence my question. I dont know if there is any way to change this
2016 Nov 21
2
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
I spent some time digging into a Valgrind report of uninitialized values in LLVM r287520 built using itself. (One of quite a few such reports that comes up during a "make check".) I could use another set of eyes on the issue if someone has time. This command gives me an error: valgrind -q ./bin/llc < /home/regehr/llvm/test/CodeGen/Hexagon/hwloop-dbg.ll -march=hexagon
2019 Mar 26
4
GSoC19: Improve LLVM binary utilities
(Adding just a bit to Jake's response) On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM Jake Ehrlich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Seiya, > > What should I prioritize? I suppose that improving llvm-objcopy is the >> most crucial work in this summer. > > > This is an opinion that will vary a lot from person to person. > +1! And don't forget that
2016 Nov 22
2
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
Just want to emphasize that on x86-64 and using Valgrind: LLVM compiled with LLVM gets 360 unexpected test fails LLVM compiled with GCC gets 22 unexpected test fails Of course I don't know how many of these are caused by this bitfield speculation issue. John On 11/21/2016 10:48 PM, regehr via llvm-dev wrote: > Alright, here's what seems to be happening... > > The testcase
2014 Aug 26
2
[LLVMdev] llvm-objdump
Hi Kev, I'm glad to hear llvm-objdump is getting attention. I'm unclear on how much output specialization one could (or should) do for ELF vs. Mach-O. If you're game, let's compare an example: $ cat labeltest.s .text foo: nop bar: bum: nop jmp bar jmp bum jmp baz nop baz: nop Assembling for x86 and llvm-objdump'ing, i get $ llvm-mc
2016 Jun 22
2
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
Thanks Nirav, I can confirm that this works when I do the compile with llc, but then when linking to an executable with clang (patched with http://reviews.llvm.org/D20352 and compiler-rt patched with http://reviews.llvm.org/D21612) on Linux, I'm getting something different. Here's a sample of the transcript, and what I'm seeing: --->8 clang invocation 8<--- [16-06-23 3:33:42]
2007 Nov 14
10
[GE users] Apple Leopard has dtrace -- anyone used the SGE probes/scripts yet?
Hi, Chris (cc) and I try to get the SGE master monitor work with Apple Leopard dtrace. Unfortunately we are stuck with the error msg below. Anyone having an idea what could be the cause? What I can rule out as cause is function inlining for the reasons explained below. Background information on SGE master monitor implementation is under http://wiki.gridengine.info/wiki/index.php/Dtrace
2016 Jun 22
2
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
I have a bit of a riddle: In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19904 I'm trying to spell the following assembly: .palign 2, 0x90 jmp +0x9 nopw 512(%rax,%rax,1) // rest of the code I try the following snippet to accomplish this: OutStreamer->EmitLabel(CurSled); OutStreamer->EmitCodeAlignment(4); auto Target = OutContext.createLinkerPrivateTempSymbol(); // Use a two-byte `jmp`.
2016 Jun 22
3
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:05 AM Nirav Davé <niravd at google.com> wrote: > This appears to work: > > auto Target = OutContext.createLinkerPrivateTempSymbol(); > > with > > auto Target = OutContext.createTempSymbol(); > > -Nirav > > Thanks Nirav -- I tried this but I'm still getting a "jmpq <address>" with this incantation when I load and
2016 Feb 16
2
Who patches the fixups?
Hi, I am trying to undertand which code in LLVM patches the fixups generated by assembler. Here is what I am doing: I use "llvm-mc" to compile X86 assembly code, like below: $ echo "jmp 5000" | ./bin/llvm-mc -assemble -triple=i386 -show-encoding -x86-asm-syntax=att -output-asm-variant=1 .text jmp 5000 # encoding: [0xeb,A]
2016 Jun 22
0
x86: How to Force 2-byte `jmp` instruction in lowering
Hmm. Odd. I just rebuilt from scratch and it seems to work with the test/CodeGen/X86/xray-attribute-instrumentation.ll test case outputing straight to obj: llc -filetype=obj -o ~/a.o -mtriple=x86_64-apple-macosx < test/CodeGen/X86/xray-attribute-instrumentation.ll What test case are you using? In any case, the issue appears to be that llvm doesn't realize that the target address is
2006 Jun 29
2
[LLVMdev] jump table ?
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:36:23 +0100 Ralph Corderoy <ralph at inputplus.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > So if i'm using the JIT then it will generate a switch table ? How > > can i test this, since i've been examining the native assembly output > > (is this 'pic' mode?) of llc. > > Presumably the JIT means you end up with a `function
2006 Jun 29
0
[LLVMdev] jump table ?
Hi Simon, > > objdump's -i option will show you the available file formats, one's > > normally `binary' or something similar. > > I've had a look at this, and it's not yielding any results so far. > Surely objdump expects an elf header, symbol table, etc. ? Try objdump -D -b binary -m i386 /etc/passwd objdump is happy to treat a file of bytes as
2018 Apr 26
2
windows ABI problem with i128?
I'm trying to use LLVM to create compiler-rt.o on Windows. I use this command from the compiler-rt project: [nix-shell:~/downloads/llvm-project/compiler-rt]$ clang -nostdlib -S -emit-llvm lib/builtins/udivti3.c -g -target x86_64-windows -DCRT_HAS_128BIT The resulting LLVM IR is: ================================================================= ; ModuleID = 'lib/builtins/udivti3.c'
2018 Aug 09
3
Replace "ret" with "pop+jump"
Hi I want to replace all the return instructions in the program with pop <reg>; jmp <reg>. Should I use IRBuilder in LLVM IR level? I found that there is a IRBuilder::CreateIndirectBr Or Should I modify the code in lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp in backend ? I found that there is a X86TargetLowering::LowerCall Which is better? Thanks -------------- next part --------------
2014 Dec 24
2
[LLVMdev] X86 disassembler is quite broken on handling REX
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe this particular error is caused by this. That seems easy enough > to just drop the bit. Do you have other non-mmx examples? > > case TYPE_MM: \ > if (index > 7) \ > *valid = 0;
2012 Feb 15
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM GHC Backend: Tables Next To Code
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:30 AM, David Terei wrote: > Hmm writing a blog post about TNTC is beyond the time I have right now. Sure, understandable. I'm surprised someone else hasn't already :) > Here is some high level documentation of the layout of Heap objects in GHC: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage/HeapObjects#InfoTables > > With