Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:52:51 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS |
| |
Chris Noe wrote: > > Well, that reason I find somewhat hard to swallow. The as86 syntax used in > the boot code is an *outcast* amongst the hundreds of other lines of gas > style asm (albeit most is gcc inline'd) sprinkled throughout the kernel. > > AT&T syntax has been the preferred and default style of every *NIX > system for as long as I can remember. > > Besides it's not *that* hard to pick up the few rules that differ: > (a) '%' before regs > (b) add a size suffix to instructions > (c) src, dst instead of dst, src > (d) base, scale, index written differently > > Not to mention that as86/ld86 are pretty archaic, undocumented and used > today to compile one sole thing in the entire universe (the kernel). :) > > Then again, I'm not against using say NASM for the boot code. I actually > somewhat prefer it's simplicity of syntax, full documentation and the fact > that it's pretty actively maintained right now. But I'd hate to bring in > another outside prerequisite to compiling the kernel. > > Right now it stands as (approximately): gcc, binutils, as86/ld86. > With this patch: gcc, binutils (which are pretty much guaranteed to be > installed) > > Would a patch in the same vein, but geared toward NASM be acceptable? >
I definitely agree that as86 is a while elephant which I'd like to get rid of. I personally would prefer NASM over gas, but on the other hand, I'm biased :)
-hpa
-- "The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions." -- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
- 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/
| |