Mail Archives: djgpp/2017/03/12/12:15:04
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
|
| X-Recipient: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
| X-Original-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
|
| d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
|
| h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
|
| bh=4DFCgrEmR5a2vqEkwjfySZ3cOdTY15U8LI37U7WoDoM=;
|
| b=KmVpHCpHakAwdfIi0QybA9BjWH4eSO5qURqE3URCtAoMzSCrZjI54xCCXE/gTI5Acf
|
| Wq7gFf+u/bWJ/IxL9262fTsEqQmk7iDEKCrQOUksk7NUMn2TShTojvl4nrwMOpgxO8IK
|
| CuQ51Wyndpg9USgK7qMtM8j7qL1kl1yoq6IiwiTYm6tGBhKNqtw2B4T/sNe+KLL2RzmT
|
| Eag8R2xi0zbBcEsC71bmnkPPQavOFAGVPo40b+9KYaAC1nHm/0kfhy3oNG5Co0my+SKe
|
| zFZk+qTGmVW8Hf1I2qyf+0S1s8KSNfUBK+cnZ9+0KZbYcSLiE8Z4lLnWPGN+wn2lK/D+
|
| qi6w==
|
| X-Google-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
|
| d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
|
| h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
|
| :message-id:subject:to;
|
| bh=4DFCgrEmR5a2vqEkwjfySZ3cOdTY15U8LI37U7WoDoM=;
|
| b=VZpAS1Nu7kR7SqtnHX6HnKRK9eUNjE4PfbXlSppVRRErCszAc2SNNd+Yf3uOh4HKOo
|
| 8CLePcmtzuylaG855k6+++VXcNHAW/g36bwFDGk10uEALb7wfuDr9sNksi7kP2YzlVjS
|
| FkzcTb98ILHw1YbTW44rx3SlscLHHIxKAZypaIVstRvRxNZ1TFCb1z5NlsvttTVZXZg0
|
| LWPV04hfEGb/bvhIBAShguUFclDTKjifNYMr5vQRRsKiSel4+pw5lYb27/qbPwlWSXb+
|
| Bai/JVF3/yqCDARlHbn2gfGK5XgbuHn/0nA41MNdN7kwkdvDAoBiVWng23KxjJYg37k7
|
| 79Rw==
|
| X-Gm-Message-State: | AFeK/H0AHH8QR6I8oM/AS0BrkPylT8m94WUNv5DYJM6SAYCNsb8iK19Dgg8d+31RhyBwgUVn5y4yX0gsjtEoUw==
|
| X-Received: | by 10.25.233.201 with SMTP id j70mr58036lfk.20.1489335293346; Sun,
|
| 12 Mar 2017 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
|
| MIME-Version: | 1.0
|
| In-Reply-To: | <CAB9Rao9rmU8wSxVGYEbkWut8qdc_CtvYX620tA1nEWRbpepe9w@mail.gmail.com>
|
| References: | <a3cedf91-bd02-46a1-9f41-58a9747747b7 AT googlegroups DOT com>
|
| <CAB9Rao8M=6bk+2BJGsCCQVs0q_aUHwf3+6zP+aG+k4oywE3LOQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
|
| <eaa5f75a-3128-4309-8d28-ab3a9ca1566b AT googlegroups DOT com> <CAB9Rao9rmU8wSxVGYEbkWut8qdc_CtvYX620tA1nEWRbpepe9w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
|
| From: | "J.W. Jagersma (jwjagersma AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
|
| Date: | Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:14:52 +0100
|
| Message-ID: | <CAPLG5jY-E2KpB_Xsu9HRiZqLGtcOVbPOu6bR+WG+gGpV_+dsnw@mail.gmail.com>
|
| Subject: | Re: BUG: djgpp should allow 16-byte alignment
|
| To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
| Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com
|
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com
|
Okay thanks, I tried -mstackrealign and it seems to help in the last
case I mentioned. I don't really see how, though. It shouldn't be
necessary in the first place, since once the stack is aligned
correctly, it should stay aligned in every subsequent function call.
The GP fault I mentioned earlier occurs in the following instruction:
60987: 0f 29 45 a8 movaps XMMWORD PTR [ebp-0x58],xmm0
Here is the entry to this function, when compiled with -mstackrealign:
00060a74 <jw::thread::detail::scheduler::check_exception()>:
60a74: 8d 4c 24 04 lea ecx,[esp+0x4]
60a78: 83 e4 f0 and esp,0xfffffff0
60a7b: ff 71 fc push DWORD PTR [ecx-0x4]
60a7e: 55 push ebp
60a7f: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
And here is the same function, without it:
00060918 <jw::thread::detail::scheduler::check_exception()>:
60918: 55 push ebp
60919: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
In the first case, ebp ends up being 0x...8, while in the second, ebp
is 0x...c. In both cases however, esp at the point of the call is
correctly aligned to 0x10 bytes.
Either with or without -mstackrealign, the stack is always aligned to
16 bytes in main():
0005ee6c <main>:
5ee6c: 55 push ebp
5ee6d: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
5ee6f: 57 push edi
5ee70: 56 push esi
5ee71: 53 push ebx
5ee72: 83 e4 f0 and esp,0xfffffff0
5ee75: 83 c4 80 add esp,0xffffff80
Here's the code I'm working with, if you want to try for yourself:
https://github.com/jwt27/jwdpmi_test
On 12 March 2017 at 06:15, Louis Santillan (lpsantil AT gmail DOT com) [via
djgpp AT delorie DOT com] <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> Have you tried using `-mstackrealign`? That might correct the errors you
> are seeing. Without seeing any code, it's hard to say what's going on.
> Looking at BZ, I see the code there but no compiler flags.
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:08 AM, jwjagersma AT gmail DOT com [via
> djgpp AT delorie DOT com] <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 10 March 2017 00:13:25 UTC+1, Louis Santillan
>> (lpsantil AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> > Are you unable to use `--mstackrealign`,
>> > `-mpreferred-stack-boundary=num`, `-mincoming-stack-boundary=num` [0]?
>> > Looks like you'll also need to force those options if you compile with `-Os`
>> > as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [0]
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.5/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html#i386-and-x86-64-Options
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM, jwjag DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com [via
>> > dj DOT DOT DOT AT delorie DOT com] <dj DOT DOT DOT AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> > Currently it seems that djgpp does not support 16-byte alignment. Since
>> > djgpp-compiled programs can potentially use SSE instructions (either
>> > explicitly or implicitly, when compiled with -march=pentium3), I do think
>> > this should be supported.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > previous discussion:
>> >
>> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79935
>>
>> I was already using -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 (which implies
>> -mincoming-stack-boundary=4) but that didn't seem to have the intended
>> effect. Most notably in static constructors, the stack alignment is always 8
>> bytes off. From the disassembly I can tell gcc does its best to keep the
>> stack aligned, so that part works correctly, at least.
>>
>> Now yesterday I had a problem in a non-static function, where gcc inserted
>> an SSE instruction with a memory operand [ebp-0x58], with (ebp % 0x10 ==
>> 0x0c). That doesn't make any sense at all! It's guaranteed to cause a GP
>> fault and gcc should know this.
>>
>
- Raw text -