From owner-cvs-sys  Fri Nov 15 01:11:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-cvs-sys
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA28785
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA28713;
          Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id UAA06197; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:05:17 +1100
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:05:17 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199611150905.UAA06197@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: dg@root.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 locore.s
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org,
        CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> >  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