[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CA618AC.4000500@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:21:48 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, heukelum@...tmail.fm,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gas 2.16 and assembly macros -- entry_64.S build failure
On 10/01/2010 08:46 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Perhaps a misunderstanding? I meant to move the % back into
> movq_cfi's arguments, out of the macro body. pushq_cfi already
> is in the shape we need for having the option of using cpp macros
> when !CONFIG_AS_CFI.
>
Hm... I guess I'm not quite following. I don't really see how that
would help with movq_cfi, though?
>>> The other alternative, albeit disliked by Ingo, continues to be to use
>>> __stringify() on all non-trivial operands, which then wouldn't require
>>> suppressing CONFIG_AS_CFI for pre-2.17 binutils.
>>
>> You should be taken out and shot for even thinking that, never mind
>> putting it in writing...
>
> Thank you!
Just in case the intended sarcasm didn't read... I was of course joking,
although in all seriousness the __stringify() truly is
stick-your-eyes-out ugly and is just begging for future problems. It
really isn't an option.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists