Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:32 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bioscall.s Message-ID: <20000717203332.A64934@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200007180020.RAA17343@freeway.dcfinc.com>; from chad@DCFinc.com on Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 05:20:29PM -0700 References: <20000717233823.B78153@freebie.demon.nl> <200007180020.RAA17343@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 05:20:29PM -0700, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> Could someone please offer a brief explanation about the nature of
> the change to the binutils?
Binutils 2.10.0 now accepts (read requires) proper AT&T ASM syntax.
Previous versions required a bastardized syntax that was neither proper
AT&T nor Intel syntax.
> How are they different such that the kernel build method needed change?
Older kernel sources are now seen as having syntax errors.
This would be the same as if we used a C compiler that required functions
to be written like this:
void foo(void) [ return; ]
and then we updated to an ANSI-C compiler. The .c source in /usr/src/
would have been fixed at the same time the ANSI-C compiler was imported
into the base system. Obviously the installed [brain dead] C compiler
will not properly compile "void foo(void) { return; }". This is what we
are going thru with the assembler.
> My original understanding was that the new method used the tools in
> /usr/obj instead of in /usr/bin, in order to build kernels with
> freshly built tools, rather than the tools from the previous build.
Correct.
> Late postings imply something more complicated has happened.
> Is that true?
All I've seen so far is pilot error -- nothing wrong with the method.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000717203332.A64934>