Fix asm constraints to avoid SI, DI for byte and word access.

[pintos-anon] / doc / userprog.texi

diff --git a/doc/userprog.texi b/doc/userprog.texi
index df25ed9ed474d0122ec52912fc0422c7c2155a44..612bb81ba553166d0796c84a923155a7e404ce45 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/userprog.texi
+++ b/doc/userprog.texi
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ The second method is to check only that a user
 pointer points below @code{PHYS_BASE}, then dereference it.
 An invalid user pointer will cause a ``page fault'' that you can
 handle by modifying the code for @func{page_fault} in
-@file{userprog/exception.cc}.  This technique is normally faster
+@file{userprog/exception.c}.  This technique is normally faster
 because it takes advantage of the processor's MMU, so it tends to be
 used in real kernels (including Linux).
 
@@ -443,7 +443,7 @@ put_user (uint8_t *udst, uint8_t byte)
 {
   int error_code;
   asm ("movl $1f, %0; movb %b2, %1; 1:"
-       : "=&a" (error_code), "=m" (*udst) : "r" (byte));
+       : "=&a" (error_code), "=m" (*udst) : "q" (byte));
   return error_code != -1;
 }
 @end verbatim
@@ -705,13 +705,13 @@ than end of file).  Fd 0 reads from the keyboard using
 
 @deftypefn {System Call} int write (int @var{fd}, const void *@var{buffer}, unsigned @var{size})
 Writes @var{size} bytes from @var{buffer} to the open file @var{fd}.
-Returns the number of bytes actually written, or -1 if the file could
-not be written.
+Returns the number of bytes actually written, which may be less than
+@var{size} if some bytes could not be written.
 
 Writing past end-of-file would normally extend the file, but file growth
 is not implemented by the basic file system.  The expected behavior is
 to write as many bytes as possible up to end-of-file and return the
-actual number written, or -1 if no bytes could be written at all.
+actual number written, or 0 if no bytes could be written at all.
 
 Fd 1 writes to the console.  Your code to write to the console should
 write all of @var{buffer} in one call to @func{putbuf}, at least as
@@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ call handler just prints @samp{system call!} and terminates the program.
 Until then, you can use @func{hex_dump} to convince yourself that
 argument passing is implemented correctly (@pxref{Program Startup Details}).
 
-@item How can I can disassemble user programs?
+@item How can I disassemble user programs?
 
 The @command{objdump} (80@var{x}86) or @command{i386-elf-objdump}
 (SPARC) utility can disassemble entire user
@@ -1090,17 +1090,18 @@ pointers.
 
 Then, push the address of each string plus a null pointer sentinel, on
 the stack, in right-to-left order.  These are the elements of
-@code{argv}.  The order ensure that @code{argv[0]} is at the lowest
-virtual address.  Word-aligned accesses are faster than unaligned
-accesses, so for best performance round the stack pointer down to a
-multiple of 4 before the first push.
+@code{argv}.  The null pointer sentinel ensures that @code{argv[argc]}
+is a null pointer, as required by the C standard.  The order ensures
+that @code{argv[0]} is at the lowest virtual address.  Word-aligned
+accesses are faster than unaligned accesses, so for best performance
+round the stack pointer down to a multiple of 4 before the first push.
 
 Then, push @code{argv} (the address of @code{argv[0]}) and @code{argc},
 in that order.  Finally, push a fake ``return address'': although the
 entry function will never return, its stack frame must have the same
 structure as any other.
 
-The table below show the state of the stack and the relevant registers
+The table below shows the state of the stack and the relevant registers
 right before the beginning of the user program, assuming
 @code{PHYS_BASE} is @t{0xc0000000}: