Re: indexing arrays

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/18/2013 12:35 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/18/2013 11:07 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/18/2013 10:57 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/18/2013 03:47 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/17/2013 11:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mischa Baars:

Please have a look at the following example, and let me know what
you think.
The code doesn't contain any comments, so we don't know what you're
trying to do.
The assembly file does, if you would just look at it.

As you can see, the 'ebx' register is unprotected when the function is
called from a location other than 'main'. Normally I shouldn't be able
to modify the array index from the assembly.
You're doing it wrong.  It is the job of the called function to save and
restore %ebx:

%ebx     As described below, this register serves as the global offset
           table base register for position-independent code. For
           absolute code, %ebx serves as a local register and has no
           specified role in the function calling sequence. In either
           case, a function must preserve the register value for the
           caller.

http://www.sco.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf
I see what you are pointing at (p.37), but it also says "DRAFT COPY" :)
That isn't going to change any time soon.

As I understand, you're not willing to consider any alternative to the ABI. I understand!


As you see from the program output, the 'ebx' register IS preserved when
the 'npx_on_double()' function is called from 'main()', but the 'ebx'
registers IS NOT preserved when the 'npx_on_double()' function is called
from another function like 'npx_on_complex()'.

This makes writing low-level functions very sensitive to errors.
No-one can write reliable code by trying something and seeing if it
works.  You have know understand what you're doing.  When writing
assembly code it's your job to know the ABI, and to follow the rules.
Do that, and you'll be fine.

Andrew.

You seem to have forgotten a couple of my words.

It took me two or three years to realize there was this minor misconception in code that I was already working with, the construction the compiler is using seems a little sensitive to errors.

Mischa.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux