On 05/10/16 19:36, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:24:28PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/05/2016 18:48, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course we're well outside any standards here. Can we tell clang
>>> users to use the GCC/pre-compiled option ROMs :-? An
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:24:28PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/2016 18:48, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > Of course we're well outside any standards here. Can we tell clang
> > users to use the GCC/pre-compiled option ROMs :-? Any other ideas? I
> > don't think I've missed a
On 09/05/2016 18:48, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Of course we're well outside any standards here. Can we tell clang
> users to use the GCC/pre-compiled option ROMs :-? Any other ideas? I
> don't think I've missed a flag (GCC has -fno-toplevel-reorder, but
> clang 3.8 doesn't ...)
I guess t
On 09/05/2016 23:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> FWIW the response from the LLVM developers:
>
> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27688
Why the heck are they saying that -fno-toplevel-reorder is "gone" (or
deprecated in the duplicate PR)?
Paolo
FWIW the response from the LLVM developers:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27688
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual
On 05/09/16 18:48, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Actually there's a rather more fundamental problem. In the current
> linuxboot_dma.c we use asm statements at the top and bottom of the
> file (outside any function). The asm statements define the header and
> what I assume is the footer of the fi
Actually there's a rather more fundamental problem. In the current
linuxboot_dma.c we use asm statements at the top and bottom of the
file (outside any function). The asm statements define the header and
what I assume is the footer of the file. At any rate, they encode the
size of the file (the
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:31:26PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> v5 -> v6:
> >>
> >> - Changed the xen_load_linux assertion as suggested by Stefan.
> >>
> >> - I
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> v5 -> v6:
>>
>> - Changed the xen_load_linux assertion as suggested by Stefan.
>>
>> - I renamed the variables in get_e801_addr function, since the
>>registers were
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> v5 -> v6:
>
> - Changed the xen_load_linux assertion as suggested by Stefan.
>
> - I renamed the variables in get_e801_addr function, since the
>registers were really (16 bit 8086-style) AX, not EAX etc. Also I
>chan
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:04:41 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> From: Marc Marí
>
> This optionrom is based on linuxboot.S.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Marí
> Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones
> ---
> .gitignore| 4 +
> hw/i386/pc.c | 10 +-
> hw
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> v5 -> v6:
>
> - Changed the xen_load_linux assertion as suggested by Stefan.
>
> - I renamed the variables in get_e801_addr function, since the
>registers were really (16 bit 8086-style) AX, not EAX etc. Also I
>chan
From: Marc Marí
This optionrom is based on linuxboot.S.
Signed-off-by: Marc Marí
Signed-off-by: Richard W.M. Jones
---
.gitignore| 4 +
hw/i386/pc.c | 10 +-
hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 2 +-
include/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.h | 1 +
v5 -> v6:
- Changed the xen_load_linux assertion as suggested by Stefan.
- I renamed the variables in get_e801_addr function, since the
registers were really (16 bit 8086-style) AX, not EAX etc. Also I
changed the GCC asm to make it a little bit more efficient. I
verified by disassem
14 matches
Mail list logo
