Re: Boot code rewritten for GAS

Jeff Garzik (
Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:11:07 -0400

Chris Noe wrote:
> Well today I went digging around, picked up the latest binutils from
> cygnus CVS and discovered that it has fixed every bug uncovered by my
> patch. The 16-bit i386 back-end from 2.9.1 was notoriously bad and from
> the (quick) looks of it 2.9.5 is a hell of a lot more sane.

IMHO gas 16-bit use will be inconvenient for a while... my RH 6.0 box
uses gas 2.9.1, so older systems will be even worse.

> Then again, I'm not against using say NASM for the boot code. I actually
> somewhat prefer it's simplicity of syntax, full documentation and the fact
> that it's pretty actively maintained right now. But I'd hate to bring in
> another outside prerequisite to compiling the kernel.

nasm is nice, for all the reasons you mention above. The only
overriding concern is that as86 works, and assemblers for 16-bit x86
targets don't need to be updated very often :)


One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is...  If they do
foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little.
                -- Joe Martin

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at