Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:44:27 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Syscall x86 convention in Devlopers' Handbook Message-ID: <1928479.9KfryLvuNc@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <396A5D5F-AED3-4D79-8CD4-356A7FECCF9F@icloud.com> References: <396A5D5F-AED3-4D79-8CD4-356A7FECCF9F@icloud.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, September 06, 2014 02:40:33 PM Seo Townsend wrote: > Hey guys, this is my first time in this mailing list so I=E2=80=99m n= ot fully aware > of all the procedures=E2=80=A6 >=20 > I was looking through the developer handbook and noticed that the > Developer=E2=80=99s Handbook section on Assembly for x86 doesn=E2=80=99= t make any mention > of the change in the syscall calling convention from i386 to x86-64 a= nd I > can=E2=80=99t seem to find this documented anywhere. The documentati= on does > mention =E2=80=9CFreeBSD kernel uses the C calling convention=E2=80=9D= (11.3.1) but doesn=E2=80=99t > point out that the C calling convention changed from i386 to x86-64; = and > the architecture listed for 11 is generically (x86 Assembly Language > Programming). Arguably, the "C calling convention" on x86-64 is to pass by register s= ince=20 that is what C uses on x86-64, so I'm not sure the statement is wrong. > Thoughts? Some ideas I had are: > (1). Change =E2=80=9Cx86 Assembly Language Programming=E2=80=9D to =E2= =80=9Ci386 Assembly=E2=80=9D - This > would clear up the disambiguity of the 32bit architecture and 64bit > architecture. I think this is probably a fine thing to do. > (2). Add a footnote to (11.3.1) with =E2=80=9CIf you are using > x86-64, please note that the calling convention for both C and syscal= l > changed from pushing arguments on the stack to using a list of ordere= d > registered as outlined in the System V AMD64 ABI specification=E2=80=9D= I don't really think this is the proper place to document the well-know= n=20 x86-64 calling conventions. :) If you are programming 64-bit assembly = you=20 should already know those. > (3). I would not mind eventually adding a section for =E2=80=9Cx86-64= assembly=E2=80=9D for > (11.3.2) if I could get someone to help mentor me. I suspect it would be more useful to just replace the current 32-bit ex= ample with only a 64-bit example and not try to keep both. --=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1928479.9KfryLvuNc>