From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 15 13:34:50 2006
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189B316A4DA;
	Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:34:50 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:46 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <200608151245.k7FCjpJo077372@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<200608150913.52419.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200608150913.52419.jhb@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608152134.46359.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 support.S
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:34:50 -0000

On Tuesday 15 August 2006 21:13, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 08:45, David Xu wrote:
> > davidxu     2006-08-15 12:45:51 UTC
> >
> >   FreeBSD src repository
> >
> >   Modified files:
> >     sys/amd64/amd64      support.S
> >   Log:
> >   Because fuword on AMD64 returns 64bit long integer -1 on fault, clear
> >   entire %rax to zero instead of only clearing %eax, otherwise it will
> >   leave garbage data in upper 32 bits.
>
> Are you sure that 'xorl %eax,%eax' doesn't actually clear all 64 bits?=20
> This practice of just using xorl rather than xorq is all over the place in
> the amd64 code, and I think I've even seen gcc generate it, so I'm guessi=
ng
> that the xorl actually is a xorq.

=46rom my understanding, they are different.

before my change, generated binary code:

0000000000003ba0 <fusufault>:
    3ba0:       65 48 8b 0c 25 20 00    mov    %gs:0x20,%rcx
    3ba7:       00 00
    3ba9:       31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
    3bab:       48 89 81 a8 02 00 00    mov    %rax,0x2a8(%rcx)
    3bb2:       48 ff c8                dec    %rax
    3bb5:       c3                      retq
    3bb6:       66                      data16
    3bb7:       66                      data16
    3bb8:       66                      data16

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
after this change:

0000000000003ba0 <fusufault>:
    3ba0:       65 48 8b 0c 25 20 00    mov    %gs:0x20,%rcx
    3ba7:       00 00
    3ba9:       48 31 c0                xor    %rax,%rax
    3bac:       48 89 81 a8 02 00 00    mov    %rax,0x2a8(%rcx)
    3bb3:       48 ff c8                dec    %rax
    3bb6:       c3                      retq


I have only checked fuword while I am working on userland mutex
priority propagating, I have not checked suword and others yet.

David Xu