From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: Cs/ 14346 breaks 64bit hv Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20070314093404.GA2351@york.uk.xensource.com> References: <683860AD674C7348A0BF0DE3918482F6048FB5BC@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com> <683860AD674C7348A0BF0DE3918482F6048FB5F7@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <683860AD674C7348A0BF0DE3918482F6048FB5F7@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Woller, Thomas" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 01:47 -0500 on 14 Mar (1173836821), Woller, Thomas wrote: > Took a look at the rombios.s code generated in both cases (14344 and > 14345) and seems like the "jump to the boot vector" code is not executed > on the failing case. There is a "default: return" in the function > immediately above an "#if BX_TCGBIOS", and then the non-executed asm > code. > Is bcc not understanding that the asm code following should be executed? > Seems like there is added a default "return" so that the "jump to boot > vector" code is never executed? appears to be the case..but not sure. That would be terrifying. Presumably there's a jmp past that ret somewhere. I got the impression from your first email that some guests do boot, and that can only happen through that iret. Does adding an explicit "return;" in C after the asm block change the behaviour? > Code snippets are below. Using gcc 3.3.5, but will try 4.x compiler, > although looks like bcc is used to generate the rombios.s file if I read > the Makefile correctly. Yep. What version of bcc are you using? (bcc -v says 0.16.14 for me) Cheers, Tim. -- Tim Deegan , XenSource UK Limited Registered office c/o EC2Y 5EB, UK; company number 05334508