On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode, for address -0x4300(%rax), hardware
sign-extends displacement from 32-bits to 64-bits and adds it to %rax.
But x32 wants 32-bit -0x4300, not 64-bit -0x4300. This patch
uses 32-bit regis
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode, for address -0x4300(%rax), hardware
>>> sign-extends displacement from 32-bits to 64-bits and adds it
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode, for address -0x4300(%rax), hardware
>> sign-extends displacement from 32-bits to 64-bits and adds it to %rax.
>> But x32 wants 32-bit -0x4300, not 64-bi
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode, for address -0x4300(%rax), hardware
> sign-extends displacement from 32-bits to 64-bits and adds it to %rax.
> But x32 wants 32-bit -0x4300, not 64-bit -0x4300. This patch
> uses 32-bit registers instead
Hi,
Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode, for address -0x4300(%rax), hardware
sign-extends displacement from 32-bits to 64-bits and adds it to %rax.
But x32 wants 32-bit -0x4300, not 64-bit -0x4300. This patch
uses 32-bit registers instead of 64-bit registers when displacement
< -16*1024*10