|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2003-12-19 10:34:12
|
On Friday 19 December 2003 01:26, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 12:12, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 December 2003 19:17, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > > Where should I allocate space for this flag?
> > > Or better: How to get rid of the permission check, i.e. the "%fs:"
> > > segment?
> > * We add LOAD/STORE variants that explicitly do no bound checks, which
> > can be used by tools.
>
> I was thinking of adding CSTORE and CLOAD Uops (meaning either Checked
> or Client), so that LOAD and STORE can be used on any address.
Seems to be a good idea.
> I wonder if tools will ever want to generate FP/SSE instructions? At
> the moment, they're always checked too.
Isn't there a way in the future to translate FP/SSE instructions which access
memory to also use CLOAD/CSTORE?
> > 1171 done_this_time = (Int)dispatch_ctr_SAVED - (Int)VG(dispatch_ctr)-1;
> > 1172 vg_assert(done_this_time >= 0);
> ...
Strange. I can't reproduce the failed assertion at the moment ;-(
Josef
PS: Can you supply the following patch to let --tracegen start at BB #0 ?
--- vg_translate.c 18 Dec 2003 09:06:08 -0000 1.64
+++ vg_translate.c 19 Dec 2003 10:32:58 -0000
@@ -2386,7 +2386,7 @@
notrace_until_limit to be the number of translations to be made
before --trace-codegen= style printing takes effect. */
notrace_until_done
- = VG_(overall_in_count) > notrace_until_limit;
+ = VG_(overall_in_count) >= notrace_until_limit;
seg = VG_(find_segment)(orig_addr);
|