Andi wrote:
> The only thing questionable is that .code16gcc is arguably quite
> an abuse of gcc. I even checked with some gcc developers
> and they weren't too happy about it. e.g. it's not regression
> tested at all so we would be basically on our own with it.
On the other hand GCC just produces an assembly text file, it is
not the GCC developper problem what the user does with this text file.
Usually it goes to the assembler with standard options - .code16gcc
is a "special" option - and bugs (if there is) should be forwarded to binutils.
GCC tries to go around CPU bugs, and those bug may be different in
protected or real mode - but I still do not have one example of such
a bug.
GCC also has a base library support (multiplication & divisions of
64 bits...), and when you use .code16gcc you know you cannot touch it
(it is assembled with .code32); so that management may be what they
are refering to.
Etienne.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
