https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
--- Comment #7 from Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com> --- (In reply to Antoni Boucher from comment #6) > Do you mean that gcc produces invalid asm when using the Intel syntax and > should be using pushq? No. "push offset ..." is the correct form in Intel syntax. What I'm saying is that it is wrong to emit such code without -mcmodel=kernel, for there not being any guarantee that the resulting code will actually link. (At the same time an assembly programmer may write such code, knowing the target environment.) > I was under the impression that suffixes like q was ATT syntax, but I > couldn't find any reference of the intel syntax allowed in GNU as. It does > seem to allow pushq even for the Intel syntax, though. It does, but more by mistake than deliberately. > Other assemblers allow "push qword". That's a different form of push, with a memory operand (here we're talking about immediate / address operands). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.