Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Ammar Faizi' <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
CC:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thomas_Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
        Nicholas Rosenberg <inori@vnlx.org>,
        "Alviro Iskandar Setiawan" <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>,
        Michael William Jonathan <moe@gnuweeb.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] nolibc x86-64 string functions
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] nolibc x86-64 string functions
Thread-Index: AQHZ23UUaWogkrxxpUapKlllYL+KVbAF2IcQgAAa01yAABQxQP//9ZyAgAASV3A=
Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:54:56 +0000
Message-ID: <0d4effd9255143d6a7d90b5b37f01cdb@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20230830135726.1939997-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <5a821292d96a4dbc84c96ccdc6b5b666@AcuMS.aculab.com> <ZPHPJDXIkFfP5Eux@1wt.eu>
 <ZPHh0duonHnyAX6C@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
 <b6a33f1c9c0544c29904e29b06a7cff8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <ZPH4I2W+zvhK93U/@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZPH4I2W+zvhK93U/@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Ammar Faizi
> Sent: 01 September 2023 15:42
...
> > > "    movq    %rdx, %rcx\n"
> > > "    movq    %rdi, %rdx\n"
> > > "    movq    %rdi, %rax\n"
> >
> > You seem to have confused yourself about whether you are using %eax or %edx.
> 
> What do you mean? They're all 64-bit pointers.

%ax, %eax, %rax - what is the difference :-)

> What I know is that the %rdx will be clobbered by "subq %rsi, %rdx"
> below and the %rax should be return value. That's why I copy the %rdi
> twice. memmove() returns the dst pointer. Did I miss something?

I'd forgotten about the (stupid) return value.

I'm pretty sure it is an accident from the original pdp-11
implementation from the days before C had an explicit 'return'
statement.
(The pdp-11 I used ran RSX/11M - so had a Fortran compiler
not a C one.)

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)