Re: 2.2.17pre9: A typo fixed; some warnings squashed

• Next message: Urban Widmark: "Re: [patch] forward port of 16 bit nls (vfat, ntfs, ncpfs,"
• Previous message: almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch: "Re: Should we clear current->blocked on exec?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:

[...]

> > movw %ax, %dx
> >
> > instead of (clearly wrong!):
> >
> > movw %eax,%edx

> gcc generates movw %ax, %dx anyway but the wrong one doesnt work with old
> binutils.

AFAIU, gcc doesn't even look into the strings inside asm(), just blindly
substitutes stuff for %'es (at least that is exactly what I would do, for
expediency if nothing else). So this has to be a binutils (as) matter, if
anything.

> > It might be right to stay with known broken tools to not rock the boat for
> > a stable kernel series, but _please_ get rid of that crap for 2.4

> Agreed

Thanks!!

-- 
Horst von Brand                             vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile                               +56 32 672616
-
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/

• Next message: Urban Widmark: "Re: [patch] forward port of 16 bit nls (vfat, ntfs, ncpfs,"
• Previous message: almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch: "Re: Should we clear current->blocked on exec?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST