Re: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question

[Peter Colson]

On 06/10/2004, at 5:31 PM, Gopal V wrote:
> So in fact I think the mload & l2i is causing problems
> and *maybe* you might want to have a look at the
> marshal_ip() function in int_table.c (in case the
> marshalling is causing problems). There is also a
> faint chance that call_native is not working properly
> unless you have some other place in your dump
> where it works :)

OK, I'm adding debug stuff to these areas just to check.

More interestingly though:

> > > > > > > stacktop(llx)= 80090dd2e8
> > > > > > > &(stacktop[-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG]) = 88090dd2e0
> ..
> > I'm missing something here - where are you getting
> > 0x7FFFFFFF8 from?
>
> 88090dd2e0 > 80090dd2e8 (I'm assuming that you have
> this in the printfs)
>
> fprintf(stderr, ">>>>> stacktop(llx) = %llx",
> stacktop);
> fprintf(stderr, ">>>>>
> &(stacktop[-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG]) = %llx",
> &(stacktop[-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG]));
>
> So then why are these two printf's showing so much
> difference in value (my calc showed 0x7FFFFFFF8).

Indeed why?

I've gone back to this and can see (as you did):

stacktop = 0x80090dd2e8
&(stacktop[-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG]) = 88090dd2e0

However,

stacktop-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG = 80090dd2e0

which seems to make more sense. Now, are:

&(stacktop[-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG])
stacktop-CVM_WORDS_PER_LONG

equivalent? At first glance I would have thought yes...which
makes the differences quite odd and it's in the second '8' of
'88090...'. I'll look into it more...

Regards,
Peter Colson.