[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
re: updating COMPAT_LINUX for linux 2.6.x support (take 2)
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:32:47AM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> > On Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 08:57:44 -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > > - the assembler apparently now uses a different opcode for reloading
> > > %gs
> > > than it used to, so the check for this instruction in INTRFASTEXIT
> > > being the cause of a kernel trap wasn't working. I fixed the check
> > > to match the current generated code.
> > Would it not be necessary for compatibility with older binaries (how
> > much older??) to check for both cases?
> there's no compatibility issue here, the kernel is looking at its own
> instructions, not an application's. we require that a kernel be built
> with the matching toolchain, so there's only one version of the assembler
> that would matter for a particular kernel binary.
we shouldn't depend upon GCC/gas versions so heavily IMO. testing for
both should be failry easy, right?
sometimes newer / older toolchain components are useful for various
Main Index |
Thread Index |