From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753565Ab0JARWd (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:22:33 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:55851 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751544Ab0JARWc (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA618AC.4000500@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:21:48 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Beulich CC: Ingo Molnar , heukelum@fastmail.fm, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, LKML Subject: Re: gas 2.16 and assembly macros -- entry_64.S build failure References: <201009152110.o8FLAJeJ015584@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <4C91F07E0200007800016B50@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20100916082816.GA25681@elte.hu> <4C91F3A30200007800016B64@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20100916101355.GA31458@elte.hu> <4C9219BC0200007800016C53@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4CA52AA5.5040402@zytor.com> <4CA5B7910200007800019F50@vpn.id2.novell.com> <4CA5FC96.1030300@zytor.com> <4CA61E8B020000780001A22A@vpn.id2.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <4CA61E8B020000780001A22A@vpn.id2.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/01/2010 08:46 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Perhaps a misunderstanding? I meant to move the % back into > movq_cfi's arguments, out of the macro body. pushq_cfi already > is in the shape we need for having the option of using cpp macros > when !CONFIG_AS_CFI. > Hm... I guess I'm not quite following. I don't really see how that would help with movq_cfi, though? >>> The other alternative, albeit disliked by Ingo, continues to be to use >>> __stringify() on all non-trivial operands, which then wouldn't require >>> suppressing CONFIG_AS_CFI for pre-2.17 binutils. >> >> You should be taken out and shot for even thinking that, never mind >> putting it in writing... > > Thank you! Just in case the intended sarcasm didn't read... I was of course joking, although in all seriousness the __stringify() truly is stick-your-eyes-out ugly and is just begging for future problems. It really isn't an option. -hpa