On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:22:03PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:47:41AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This patch fixes the stack protection insns to support stacks larger than
> > 16-bits on the 'future' system using prefixed loads and stores.
>
> > +
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 12:38:56AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> It emits a literal ';' into the assembler code.
Or actually, huh, it doesn't. Sorry. See read_braced_string in
read-md.c . Your code is fine.
Segher
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:22:03PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:47:41AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > We could make %pN mean 'p' for prefixed, for memory as operands[N]? Are
> > there more p
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:22:03PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:47:41AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This patch fixes the stack protection insns to support stacks larger than
> > 16-bits on the 'future' system using prefixed loads and stores.
>
> > +
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:47:41AM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> This patch fixes the stack protection insns to support stacks larger than
> 16-bits on the 'future' system using prefixed loads and stores.
> +;; We can't use the prefixed attribute here because there are two memory
> +;; ins
This patch fixes the stack protection insns to support stacks larger than
16-bits on the 'future' system using prefixed loads and stores.
This rewrites V5 patch #5. In earlier patches, I had had a variant of this
patch, but I was asked to restrict the protect insns to use non-prefixed insns,
whic
