Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:40:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:40:59 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:44050 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:40:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:49:31 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: Ulrich Drepper , Dave Jones , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Subject: Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance In-Reply-To: <1040153030.20804.8.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 927 Lines: 31 On 17 Dec 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > Is there any reason you can't just keep the linker out of the entire > mess by generating > > .byte whatever > .dword 0xFFFF0000 > > instead of call ? Alan, the problem is that there _is_ no such instruction as a "call absolute". There is only a "call relative" or "call indirect-absolute". So you either have to indirect through memory or a register, or you have to fix up the call at link-time. Yeah, I know it sounds strange, but it makes sense. Absolute calls are actually very unusual, and using relative calls is _usually_ the right thing to do. It's only in cases like this that we really want to call a specific address. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/