>
>
> 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/