Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] tools/nolibc: i386: Implement syscall with 6 arguments

[Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>]

On 3/22/22 7:13 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:02:53PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>> I propose the
>> following macro (this is not so much different with other my_syscall macro),
>> expect the 6th argument can be in reg or mem.
>>
>> The "rm" constraint here gives the opportunity for the compiler to use %ebp
>> instead of memory if -fomit-frame-pointer is turned on.
>>
>> #define my_syscall6(num, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5, arg6) \
>> ({                                                         \
>>      long _ret;                                             \
>>      register long _num asm("eax") = (num);                 \
>>      register long _arg1 asm("ebx") = (long)(arg1);         \
>>      register long _arg2 asm("ecx") = (long)(arg2);         \
>>      register long _arg3 asm("edx") = (long)(arg3);         \
>>      register long _arg4 asm("esi") = (long)(arg4);         \
>>      register long _arg5 asm("edi") = (long)(arg5);         \
>>      long _arg6 = (long)(arg6); /* Might be in memory */    \
>>                                                             \
>>      asm volatile (                                         \
>>          "pushl  %[_arg6]\n\t"                              \
>>          "pushl  %%ebp\n\t"                                 \
>>          "movl   4(%%esp), %%ebp\n\t"                       \
>>          "int    $0x80\n\t"                                 \
>>          "popl   %%ebp\n\t"                                 \
>>          "addl   $4,%%esp\n\t"                              \
>>          : "=a"(_ret)                                       \
>>          : "r"(_num), "r"(_arg1), "r"(_arg2), "r"(_arg3),   \
>>            "r"(_arg4),"r"(_arg5), [_arg6]"rm"(_arg6)        \
>>          : "memory", "cc"                                   \
>>      );                                                     \
>>      _ret;                                                  \
>> })
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> Hmmm indeed that comes back to the existing constructs and is certainly
> more in line with the rest of the code (plus it will not be affected by
> -O0).
> 
> I seem to remember a register allocation issue which kept me away from
> implementing it this way on i386 back then, but given that my focus was
> not as much on i386 as it was on other platforms, it's likely that I have
> not insisted too much and not tried this one which looks like the way to
> go to me.

I turned out GCC refuses to use "rm" if we compile without -fomit-frame-pointer
(e.g. without optimization / -O0). So I will still use "m" here.

-- 
Ammar Faizi