Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:52:51 -0700

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/