Re: 2.4.31 & latest binutils: asm-problems still there

["H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:34:59AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:16:32PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 05:29:31AM +0200, Herbert Rosmanith wrote:
> (...)
> > > alessandro suardi told me that this problem is solved using the
> > > patch from:
> > >   http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
> > > 
> > > which are dated from march (2005-03-27) and therefore, about 3 months
> > > old.
> > > 
> > > it's about time this gets into the official kernel. who is in charge
> > > of it? (it's obviously not sufficient to report to lkml).
> > 
> > Looks OK except that one "movl" conversion was forgotten in 
> > the x86-64 diff:
> > 
> > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct t
> >  	}
> >  	{
> >  		unsigned gsindex;
> > -		asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=g" (gsindex)); 
> > +		asm volatile("movl %%gs,%0" : "=r" (gsindex)); 
> >  		if (unlikely((gsindex | next->gsindex) || prev->gs)) {
> > 
> > Who wrote the patch? 
> 
> I believe it's H.J. Lu (CC'd).
> 

Is there a problem?


H.J.