From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:32:30 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Gabriel Paubert Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Samuel Rydh , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: sycall asm inline Message-ID: <20020620153230.GD16052@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020619033923.14394@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <20020620151800.GC16052@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020620151800.GC16052@opus.bloom.county> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:18:00AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 03:46:01PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > > > Note that I suspect that the compiler version check can be removed, > > everybody should be at 2.95 or later now. The change in letters for > > immediate constraint was quite painful. > > Version checks for 2.4 are still probably a good idea (although I forget > if I removed one in 2.4 or 2.5, if it was 2.4, then disregard this. :)) > but probably fine for 2.5 (although 2.5 _has to_ compile with egcs-1.1.2 > for sparc for some reason..) ... can probably go with ease. And if people suddnely get hit by it, we've got a 'checkbin' target now too so we can enforce gcc/binutils versions. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/