x86-64

Prologue I am an operating system hobbyist, and my kernel runs on 80486+, and already supports virtual memory. Starting from 80386, the x86 processor family by Intel and various clones thereof has supported virtual memory with paging. It is well known that when the PG bit in CR0 is set, the processor uses virtual address translation. Then, the CR3 register points to the top-level page directory, that is the root for 2-4 levels of page table structures that map the virtual addresses to physical addresses. The processor does not consult these tables for each virtual address generated, instead

In the latest Intel software dev manual it describes two opcode prefixes: Group 2 > Branch Hints 0x2E: Branch Not Taken 0x3E: Branch Taken These allow for explicit branch prediction of Jump instructions (opcodes like Jxx ) I remember reading a couple of years ago that on x86 explicit branch prediction was essentially a no-op in the context of gccs branch prediciton intrinsics. I am now unclear if these x86 branch hints are a new feature or whether they are essentially no-ops in practice. Can anyone clear this up? (That is: Does gccs branch prediction functions generate these x86 branch hints?

This question already has an answer here: Building an assembler 4 answers How Do You Make An Assembler? [closed] 4 answers I've recently been trying to immerse myself in the world of assembly programming with the eventual goal of creating my own programming language. I want my first real project to be a simple assembler written in C that will be able to assemble a very small portion of the x86 machine language and create a Windows executable. No macros, no linkers. Just assembly. On paper, it seems simple enough. Assembly code comes in, machine code comes out. But as soon as I thinking about

When we talk about atomic variables, such as C++11's atomic<> , is it lock free? Or is lock-freeness something different? If I manage a queue with atomic variables, will it be slower than a lock-free queue? The standard does not specify if atomic objects are lock-free. On a platform that doesn't provide lock-free atomic operations for a type T, atomic<T> objects may be implemented using a mutex, which wouldn't be lock-free. In that case, any containers using these objects in their implementation would not be lock-free either. The standard does provide a way to check if an atomic<T> variable is

The intrinsics guide says only this much about void _mm_prefetch (char const* p, int i) : Fetch the line of data from memory that contains address p to a location in the cache heirarchy specified by the locality hint i. Could you list the possible values for int i parameter and explain their meanings? I've found _MM_HINT_T0 , _MM_HINT_T1 , _MM_HINT_T2 , _MM_HINT_NTA and _MM_HINT_ENTA , but I don't know whether this is an exhaustive list and what they mean. If processor-specific, I would like to know what they do on Ryzen and latest Intel Core processors. Sometimes intrinsics are better

安装环境准备工具 yum –y install oracle-rdbms-server-11gR2-preinstall 创建目录 mkdir -p /u01/app/oracle/product/19.3.0/dbhome_1 mkdir -p /u02/oradata chown -R oracle:oinstall /u01 /u02 chmod -R 775 /u01 /u02 解压安装介质 unzip -q p13390677_112040_Linux-x86-64_1of7.zip -d ~ unzip -q p13390677_112040_Linux-x86-64_2of7.zip -d ~ 安装 export ORACLE_HOME=/u01/app/oracle/product/19.3.0/dbhome_1 export DISPLAY=192.168.168.1:0.0 ~/database/runInstaller 然后一路图形点点点就好，检查告警交换空间不够 mount -o remount,size=4G /dev/shm 即可 来源： https://www.cnblogs.com/yongestcat/p/11757248.html

I am trying to create a utility that doesn't open a window when executed, and that would be activated from a hot key; I read that currently Cocoa doesn't have a function for that, and that I should use a deprecated Carbon function. Isn't there really a way to use global hot keys in Cocoa? What should I do: wait for Cocoa to introduce a function for that, or use the carbon function until a similar function is not introduced in Cocoa? Use the Carbon Event Manager's RegisterEventHotKey function . This function is supported in 64-bit (notice that it lacks the “not available in 64-bit” availability