This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions

From: Denis Zaitsev <zzz at anda dot ru>
To: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, linux-gcc at vger dot kernel dot org,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:08:56 +0500
Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
References: <20031225052045.A18774@zzz.ward.six> <20031225003819.GC13447@redhat.com> <20031225060850.C7419@zzz.ward.six> <20031225012711.GD13447@redhat.com> <20031225063850.A7869@zzz.ward.six> <20031225015353.GE13447@redhat.com>

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:53:53PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Because "m" implies (1) that the address must be valid and
> (2) that the address is used.

Ok.  What's wrong here for the typical string function?  _May be_ (1),
but in this case we'll get SIGSEGV and oter issues will lose a
sense...

References:
- i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Denis Zaitsev
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Denis Zaitsev
- Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]