Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:49:02 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | RE: bootsect.S changes |
| |
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > [SNIPPED] > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > I can't imagine why. That's like deciding to rewrite the kernel so it > > doesn't require GCC to build. AS86 was just a TOOL! We try to use the > > appropriate tool for various purposes when the need arises. The > > appropriate tool to assemble Intel mnemonics is one that understands > > Intel. GAS does not. GAS doesn't even know the way Intel assembly > > should be written, i.e., destination operand first. > > You're behind the times :-) On a new gas, try > > .intel_syntax > > and > > .att_syntax >
Wow! I will try it. Is it too much to ask that it be implemented correctly?
Wonder how it will handle mov al, byte ptr [foo] mov ax, word ptr [foo] mov eax, dword ptr [foo] fsub qword ptr [foo] lidt fword ptr [foo]
I gotta check it out............
If this stuff works, then there was no reason to change the boot code to AT&T syntax. Just do, as you say, '.intel_syntax' and assemble.
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/
| |