[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4
From: |
Paul Brook |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4 |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:10:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.4 |
> > That's exactly what my gcc4 hacks do.
> >
> > It gets complicated because a x86 uses variable length insn encodings so
> > you don't know where insn boundaries are, and a jmp instruction is larger
> > than a ret instruction so it's not always possible to do a straight
> > replacement.
>
> how about
>
> void some_generated_instruction(u32 a1, u32 s2)
> {
> // code
> asm volatile ( "" );
> }
>
>
> that will force the code to fall through to the null asm code, avoiding
> premature returns.
>
> if the code uses 'return' explicitly, turn it to a goto just before the
> 'asm volatile'.
We already do that. It doesn't stop gcc putting the return in the middle of
the function.
Paul
- [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, K. Richard Pixley, 2006/10/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Johannes Schindelin, 2006/10/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Martin Guy, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Avi Kivity, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4,
Paul Brook <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Avi Kivity, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Avi Kivity, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, K. Richard Pixley, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, K. Richard Pixley, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Laurent Desnogues, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Rob Landley, 2006/10/24
- Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs gcc4, Paul Brook, 2006/10/24