Thanks! Just for clarification, should I create a new ticket for this specific bug and then add "Closes #XXXX" to the commit message?
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 12:08 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > This is a great explanation. Would you mind filing a ticket with this > explanatino and referencing the ticket in the commit message of the patch? > > When someone wonders about the change in the future, the ticket > explanation will be useful > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:24 PM Matheus Pecoraro <matpe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I kept getting a general protection fault whenever attempting to >> execute the amd64 BSP while preparing for my GSOC proposal. >> >> The GPF was being caused by an instruction attempting to move an SSE >> register to an address on the stack not aligned to 16 bytes. After >> some debugging I noticed that the code for setting up the stack frame >> for a context would result in it being misaligned by 8 bytes as to >> what is expected by the x86-64 SysV ABI, thus leading the compiler to >> unknowingly cause the exception (when control is transferred to the >> function entry point RSP+8 is supposed to be a multiple of 16, without >> this patch RSP itself was a multiple of 16). >> >> After the fix I was able to run the hello test on the amd64 BSP both >> while booting through the FreeBSD bootloader with no EFI boot services >> as well as through GRUB with multiboot2 and EFI boot services. >> >> Matheus Pecoraro (1): >> x86_64: Fix stack aligment for x86-64 SysV ABI >> >> bsps/x86_64/amd64/clock/eficlock.c | 28 ++----------------- >> bsps/x86_64/amd64/start/start.S | 1 - >> .../cpu/x86_64/x86_64-context-initialize.c | 4 +-- >> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.43.0 >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@rtems.org >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
