Summary D vs E: - no suffix => works equally in both releases => same opcodes in all .code segments - suffix "w" => works equally in both releases => opcodes in .code32/.code64 differ from .code16 (660f..) => .code16 matches the non-suffix opcodes (0f..) - suffix "l" => failures in Disco, works in Eoan => .code16 opcodes match the non-.code16 of the "w" suffix (660f..) => .code32/.code64 are back to the base opcode (0f..) => If I remove the failing .code64 from disco then .code16/.code32 is the same as in Eoan - suffix "q" => different failures in Disco and Eoan => in Disco .code16/.code32 fails => in Disco .code64 generates the basic opcode (0f..) => in Eoan all three .code segments fail
Therefore it seems this part had major changes. Not sure what to do, is this a bug in binutils that needs to be fixed? Or was it a bug in IPXE that now is exposed? I'd appreciate help by binutils-people. @Doko when you read that you might ask some of your contacts maybe? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394 Title: FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `push' - gcc 9.2.1 / binutils 2.32.51.20190905-0ubuntu1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/1843394/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
