Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:02:09 +0930 (CST) | From | Alan Modra <> | Subject | Re: Updated i386 bootcode rewrite patch... |
| |
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, David Dyck wrote:
> > [referring to new boot code in 2.3.21] > > Right, because 2.9.1.0.7 is the absolute minimum; anything below that is > > *KNOWN TO MISCOMPILE* this code. > > So you are saying, before this patch 2.8.1.0.23 was the minimum, but > now that THIS code is added that 2.9.1.0.7 is the minimum.
I recommend 2.9.5.x.x ftp.varesearch.com/pub/support/hjl/binutils/
> Was there anything wrong with 2.8.1.0.23 except for the boot code?
Try running the gas testsuite through the old assembler ;-)
The major changes in the x86 assembler over the last year or so are:
o Greatly improved syntax checking to help catch hand-assembly errors o New .intel_syntax mode o Fixed badly broken 16-bit mode assembly - .code16 and .code16gcc o Recognise new instructions - AMD, PIII, MMX, XMM etc. o Assembly bugs fixed in a number of infrequently used instructions: o fwait form of floating point insn with another prefix. o "mov %al,(,1)", and other unusual index/base combinations o probably others, I forget. o Don't emit prefixes when they will be ignored. o Always use smallest form of index/base alternatives.
> > I wouldn't be surprised if other asms > > around the kernel were compiled wrong (or at least sub-optimally) with > > older binutils. > > Could you explain what you mean here a bit more please?
I assume Chris means my last two points above. As far as I know, 2.8.1.0.23 didn't completely mis-assemble anything used by the kernel.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |