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/