>
> (hating to reply using Outlook, but forced :)
>
> All the (current) new bootcode was written with the idea of "binary
> level compatibility" firmly in mind. I had actually worked backward from
> the original as86 output to come up with the equivalent gas instructions
> when the assembly was questionable, simply because I knew that that encoding
> worked. I did that with the idea that 'hey, if it compiles to the same
> opcodes, were fine' -- that was the sole plan at the moment: to have a 2.4
> kernel that doesn't need as86/ld86 to build.
>
> Yes that makes the source wrong on a pure "syntax" level in quite a few
> spots, but does it truly matter if (a) it assembles to the correct
> opcodes, (b) gives some much needed testing and real life usage of gas,
> so that it finally will do the right things when it comes to 16 bit asms,
> and (c) is planned on being (for lack of a better word) "optimized" back
> to correctness later on down the road (when everyone's using, or better
> yet are forced to use, the latest binutils).
[SNIPPED...]
Thanks for the excellent work and excellent explaination. If you
need some help with rework once we discover the latest and gratest
GAS, let me know. I write this kind of stuff for a living
although I use the "backwards" assemblers. I have been hacking with
gas for some time now so AT&T syntax isn't too bad anymore.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
**** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ****
Penguin : Linux version 2.3.13 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
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/