On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:58:50PM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 05:25:57PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > This is a gratuitous GCC-ism. For C code actually compiled with GCC we > > should be using -m16 where it's available (GCC 4.9+). > > > > And where the only thing marked with .code16gcc is explicit assembler > > code, we should just use .code16 and avoid letting the compiler make any > > of the assumptions that the difference affects. Which, in fact, we > > already do. > > > > (Once upon a time with ancient versions of gas, we needed to > > use .code16gcc because some instructions just wouldn't compile > > otherwise. That hasn't been true for a while though.) > > > > It still doesn't actually build with clang after this, but it's a bit > > closer. > > Thanks. Looks good to me. > > I updated the series to apply on top of my pending patches and added > it to my queue:
FYI, I committed this (slightly modified) patch series. -Kevin _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list [email protected] http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
