--- Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tzi-cker Chiueh wrote:
> > We have considered the bound instruction in the CASH project. But
> > we found that bound instruction is slower than the six normal
> > instructions it is meant to replace for range checking. For example, the
> > bound instruc
Tzi-cker Chiueh wrote:
We have considered the bound instruction in the CASH project. But
we found that bound instruction is slower than the six normal
instructions it is meant to replace for range checking. For example, the
bound instruction on a 1.1 GHz PIII machine requires 7-8 clock cycles
whi
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:52:18PM -0400, Tzi-cker Chiueh wrote:
> We have considered the bound instruction in the CASH project. But
> we found that bound instruction is slower than the six normal
> instructions it is meant to replace for range checking. For example, the
> bound instruction on a 1.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Tzi-cker Chiueh wrote:
We have considered the bound instruction in the CASH project. But
we found that bound instruction is slower than the six normal
instructions it is meant to replace for range checking. For example, the
bound instruction on a 1.1 GHz PIII machine require
We have considered the bound instruction in the CASH project. But
we found that bound instruction is slower than the six normal
instructions it is meant to replace for range checking. For example, the
bound instruction on a 1.1 GHz PIII machine requires 7-8 clock cycles
while the 6 equivalent inst
You write you needs 6 assembly instructions to check a pointer on x86,
I am using the "bound" ia32 instruction (1 byte opcode 0x62, invalid in ia64)
to check the stack pointer for few years now in Gujin (http://gujin.org)
without
problem.
I am doing this kind of thing to guard against stack
