| |
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Les Smithson wrote:
> > I think the compiler was generating incorrect code. I'm no gcc expert, but the
> > asm macros looked OK to me, and besides, why should the macro work in one
> > compiler version & not the other?
>
> Because there were some decisions made as to what "incorrect" macros were
> and weren't by the egcs/gcc teams. For some time, this made compiling the
> Linux kernel with the newest egcs a serious problem.
IMHO it is better anyway to use pure assembly files when generating
code like memcpy (which is completely in assembly here). Call them
memcpy.S, and you won't have the problem of accidentially removing
them. With this you can use 'c' style comments, as *.S -> *.o is run
through cpp by gcc first.
This doesn't work around all cases of possible inline assembly bugs/features
of gcc, but the most obvious cases can be caught. Also you know what to
expect in the file, not like now when all you see is assembler code when
opening a *.c file...
Eddie C. Dost
ecd@skynet.be
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
| (...) I don't know if Markus would approve, but it might be worthwhile to do this and put it in to CVS so that 0.2.4(?) would be compilable with 2.95.x. Does anyone have the time/skill to do this? Markus? Your two cents? -Luis ###...### Profanity is (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
| (...) Because there were some decisions made as to what "incorrect" macros were and weren't by the egcs/gcc teams. For some time, this made compiling the Linux kernel with the newest egcs a serious problem. (...) Cool. -Luis (...) ###...### (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
