From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jul 17 20:33:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [209.152.133.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7595537B957 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id UAA64996; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:32 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bioscall.s Message-ID: <20000717203332.A64934@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20000717233823.B78153@freebie.demon.nl> <200007180020.RAA17343@freeway.dcfinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200007180020.RAA17343@freeway.dcfinc.com>; from chad@DCFinc.com on Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 05:20:29PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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