On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:22:01 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > was practical to run. Here's part of its output. It looks as if > the very first instruction accesses a null pointer in a strange > way.
Actually scratch that, I don't know what I was thinking (not fully woken up yet I suppose!). You're right, it's clearly expecting %eax to be set to something on entry ... question is, what?
