Re: A patch for linux 2.1.127

Garst R. Reese (reese@isn.net)
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:32:49 -0400


Hi Alan,
I think you are missing the point. Dick Johnson is saying, if I read him
correctly, that his shop does LOTS of asm, and GNU does not provide an
easy migration. Even if there is a way to solve his problems if you are
a GNU guru, he has lots of working code in INTEL asm. Why should he have
to worry about screwing it up? The question is not whether GNU can be
defended, but whether it can be fixed to accomodate legacy code. Why not
a #define INTEL_ASM, or the like? I do not think it very wise to ignore
or deny the problems of a shop with the reputation of Analogic.
Some more of the "The customer is always right" philosophy would not
hurt unix a bit.
------------------------------------------------
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:02:41 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: A patch for linux 2.1.127

> It is thoretically possible to convert correct code to GNU `as` junk,
> however, the damn thing doesn't even do MACROs so if I am going to

Of course it doesn't do macros, this is unix. There's a perfectly good
set of preprocessors that do macros, why should gnu as be another one to
have its own different magical interpreter

> want to use another tool. It also doesn't know how to write
> a byte to a memory location, i.e., it doesn't know about the PTR
> expression to tell it whether to write a byte, a word, or a longword
> to a memory location when you do something like:

of course it does - movb, movw, movl, and furthermore because it follows
a cross platform standard I can read non x86 stuff easily. It took me
about
3 days to get the hang of gnu assembler while writing the original
linux/smp
boot code

Alan

-
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/