Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:05:17 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: dg@root.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 locore.s Message-ID: <199611150905.UAA06197@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> > Modified: sys/i386/i386 locore.s
>>> > Log:
>>> > movl instruction should have been lea (this is why userconfig didn't
>>> > work in 2.1).
>>>
>>> Erm, the movl looks OK to me, and the lea isn't an i386 instruction so
^^^^^^^
>>> it doesn't compile.
>>
>>[scratches his head]
>>
>>Why did this compile for me? And why did that single fix (suggested
>
> Bruce hasn't had his morning Wheaties or something. "lea" certainly is an
>i386 instruction. I haven't looked at the code to see if it is *correct*,
>however...but if it works I would say it is a good bet that it is.
The particular lea instruction isn't an i386 instruction:
./@/i386/i386/locore.s: Assembler messages:
./@/i386/i386/locore.s:527: Error: operands given don't match any \
known 386 instruction
`lea' is also bad (gas) style because of bugs in gas. Use `leal' if you
use it at all (not here).
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611150905.UAA06197>