> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 01:04:26AM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > My old 'reply' is not rigorous, since the syscall6() uses stack to pass
> > the 6th argument, so, our new syscall.h didn't support it currently,
> > the syscalls I have tested about "=r" instead of "=a" were only syscall1-5().
>
> Yeah, it won't fit with the new design.
>
> i386 runs out of GPRs very quickly. Given that, it had a hard time
> implementing syscall6() properly in nolibc. The calling convention
> itself actually doesn't require stack for executing 'int $0x80'.
>
> The reason of why it uses stack is because the %ebp register cannot be
> listed in the clobber list nor in the constraint if -fomit-frame-pointer
> is not activated. Thus, we have to carefully preserve the value on the
> stack before using %ebp as the 6-th argument to the syscall. It's a hack
> to make it work on i386.
>
> > Ok, so, with the new syscalls.h proposed, we'd better keep i386
> > syscall6() as-is.
> >
> > For the left syscall1-5(), is there any risk when use '=r' instead of 'r'?
>
> Using "=r" instead of "r" doesn't make sense.
>
> Did you mean "=r" instead of "=a"?
>
Yeah, sorry.
> If that's what you mean:
>
> So far I don't see the risk of using "=r" instead of "=a" as long as the
> variable is properly marked as 'register' + asm("eax").
>
Thanks.
Zhangjin
> --
> Ammar Faizi
