[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v7)
----- On Apr 4, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Paul Burton wrote:

>> 2a. A uncommon TRAP hopefully with some immediate data encoded (maybe uncommon)
> Our break instruction has a 19b immediate in nanoMIPS (20b for microMIPS
> & classic MIPS) so that could be something like:
> break 0x7273 # ASCII 'rs'

Hi Paul,

I like this uncommon break instruction as signature choice.

However, if I try to compile assembler with a break 0x7273 instruction
with mips64 and mips32 toolchains (gcc version 8.2.0 (Ubuntu 8.2.0-1ubuntu2~18.04))
I get:

/tmp/ccVh9F7T.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccVh9F7T.s:24: Error: operand 1 out of range `break 0x7273'

It works up to the value 0x3FF, which seems to use the top 10
code bits:

a: 03ff 0007 break 0x3ff

Would a "break 0x350" be a good choice as well ?

Any idea why 0x7273 is not accepted by my assembler ?

I also tried crafting the assembler with values between 0x3FF and 0x7273
in the 20 code bits. It seems fine from an objdump perspective:

".long 0x03FFFC7\n\t"


10: 003f ffc7 break 0x3f,0x3ff

What I don't understand is why the instruction generated by my
toolchain ends with the last 6 bits "000111", whereas the mips32
instruction set specifies break as ending with "001101" [1].
What am I missing ?

Also, the nanomips break code [2] has a completely different
instruction layout. Should we use a different signature when
compiling for nanomips ? What #ifdef should we use ? Do I
need a special toolchain to generate nanomips binaries ?




Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-18 20:59    [W:0.119 / U:2.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site