Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:24:47 +0200 | From | almesber@lrc ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Removes x86 warning messages |
| |
Brad Proctor wrote: > "warning: using `%eax' instead of '%ax' due to `l' suffix." > by changing all the 'l' suffixes to 'w' and adding 'w' where it is > missing.
I think the reason for using these "incorrect" constructs was that some versions of binutils fail if using the "correct" ones. I also seem to recall having seen some mention of general kernel build problems with certain recent versions of binutils, so the usual "oh, just upgrade to the latest version from CVS" may not help.
Maybe a better way to deal with all the binutils issues with x86 16 bit is to use macros for all instructions causing problems, and to either use whatever works, depending on the binutils version, or simply to include directly the actual numeric values and wait until binutils with dependable 16 bit support see wider deployment.
Isn't it ironic that the whole exercise started as an attempt to improve the esthetic value of the boot code ? (-:C
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH werner.almesberger@ica.epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
- 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/
| |