indirect lcall without `*'

indirect lcall without `*'

[Hacksaw]

In compiling 2.4.29 I get this during the compilation of pci-pc.c:

Warning: indirect lcall without `*'

I note from looking around the net that this is an old "problem", dating back 
at least to 2.4.18, if not earlier.

What does it mean? Should I care? If I shouldn't, shouldn't there be a message 
somewhere in the build process that says "This isn't a problem" so people 
don't write to lkml and ask about it?

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
-- 
That which is impossible has become necessary.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD

Re: indirect lcall without `*'

[Hacksaw]

Ahh, okay. I'm just jumpy because this is a production server.

Thanks for the answer. :-)
-- 
Nothing can plugh you now
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD

Re: indirect lcall without `*'

[Mikael Pettersson]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:46:24 -0500, Hacksaw <hacksaw@hacksaw.org> wrote:
>In compiling 2.4.29 I get this during the compilation of pci-pc.c:
>
>Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
>
>I note from looking around the net that this is an old "problem", dating back 
>at least to 2.4.18, if not earlier.
>
>What does it mean? Should I care? If I shouldn't, shouldn't there be a message 
>somewhere in the build process that says "This isn't a problem" so people 
>don't write to lkml and ask about it?

It's a binutils version issue. Older binutils didn't
require the '*', while newer ones print a warning when
it's missing. Adding the missing '*'s breaks old binutils,
which isn't considered acceptable in the stable 2.4 series.

So just live with the warnings, or apply personal patches
to silence them (like I've been doing for ages).

/Mikael