* 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there
@ 2005-06-04 3:29 Herbert Rosmanith
2005-06-05 18:16 ` Marcelo Tosatti
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Herbert Rosmanith @ 2005-06-04 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Herbert Rosmanith
good morning,
I've just tried to compile 2.4.31 and it still doesn't compile
cleanly with the latest binutils release.
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/data/root/linux-2.4.31/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -malign-functions=4 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -DKBUILD_BASENAME=process -c -o process.o process.c
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:750: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:751: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:845: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:846: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:897: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:898: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:900: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:912: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
alessandro suardi told me that this problem is solved using the
patch from:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
which are dated from march (2005-03-27) and therefore, about 3 months
old.
it's about time this gets into the official kernel. who is in charge
of it? (it's obviously not sufficient to report to lkml).
best regards,
herbert rosmanith
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there
2005-06-04 3:29 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there Herbert Rosmanith
@ 2005-06-05 18:16 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-06-05 23:34 ` Willy Tarreau
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-06-05 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Herbert Rosmanith; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:29:31AM +0200, Herbert Rosmanith wrote:
>
> good morning,
>
> I've just tried to compile 2.4.31 and it still doesn't compile
> cleanly with the latest binutils release.
>
> gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/data/root/linux-2.4.31/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -malign-functions=4 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -DKBUILD_BASENAME=process -c -o process.o process.c
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:750: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:751: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:845: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:846: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:897: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:898: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:900: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
> {standard input}:912: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
>
> alessandro suardi told me that this problem is solved using the
> patch from:
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
>
> which are dated from march (2005-03-27) and therefore, about 3 months
> old.
>
> it's about time this gets into the official kernel. who is in charge
> of it? (it's obviously not sufficient to report to lkml).
Looks OK except that one "movl" conversion was forgotten in
the x86-64 diff:
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct t
}
{
unsigned gsindex;
- asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=g" (gsindex));
+ asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=r" (gsindex));
if (unlikely((gsindex | next->gsindex) || prev->gs)) {
Who wrote the patch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there
2005-06-05 18:16 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2005-06-05 23:34 ` Willy Tarreau
2005-06-05 23:49 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2005-06-05 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Herbert Rosmanith, linux-kernel, hjl
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:16:32PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:29:31AM +0200, Herbert Rosmanith wrote:
(...)
> > alessandro suardi told me that this problem is solved using the
> > patch from:
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
> >
> > which are dated from march (2005-03-27) and therefore, about 3 months
> > old.
> >
> > it's about time this gets into the official kernel. who is in charge
> > of it? (it's obviously not sufficient to report to lkml).
>
> Looks OK except that one "movl" conversion was forgotten in
> the x86-64 diff:
>
> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct t
> }
> {
> unsigned gsindex;
> - asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=g" (gsindex));
> + asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=r" (gsindex));
> if (unlikely((gsindex | next->gsindex) || prev->gs)) {
>
> Who wrote the patch?
I believe it's H.J. Lu (CC'd).
Willy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there
2005-06-05 23:34 ` Willy Tarreau
@ 2005-06-05 23:49 ` H. J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-06-05 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Willy Tarreau; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, Herbert Rosmanith, linux-kernel
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:34:59AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:16:32PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:29:31AM +0200, Herbert Rosmanith wrote:
> (...)
> > > alessandro suardi told me that this problem is solved using the
> > > patch from:
> > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
> > >
> > > which are dated from march (2005-03-27) and therefore, about 3 months
> > > old.
> > >
> > > it's about time this gets into the official kernel. who is in charge
> > > of it? (it's obviously not sufficient to report to lkml).
> >
> > Looks OK except that one "movl" conversion was forgotten in
> > the x86-64 diff:
> >
> > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct t
> > }
> > {
> > unsigned gsindex;
> > - asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=g" (gsindex));
> > + asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=r" (gsindex));
> > if (unlikely((gsindex | next->gsindex) || prev->gs)) {
> >
> > Who wrote the patch?
>
> I believe it's H.J. Lu (CC'd).
>
Is there a problem?
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-05 23:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-06-04 3:29 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there Herbert Rosmanith
2005-06-05 18:16 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-06-05 23:34 ` Willy Tarreau
2005-06-05 23:49 ` H. J. Lu
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.