From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) To: robertl@dgii.com (Robert Lipe) Cc: gas2@cygnus.com Subject: Re: pushl computed immediate address on 2.8.1 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:25:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <19980110010126.03024@dgii.com> X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00007.html > > Looking at the example I gave more, I implied that this was from > "hello world" compiled as PIC. This was wrong. I apologize. > I grafted the failure from a f77 test case into a C hello world > and didn't make that clear. I was focusing on the gas issue on > this list and the gcc issues in the egcs list. In trying to > simplify the gas test case, I obscured the actual case where > gcc/egcs would emit this. > Now, that makes senses. > You can see one real example of this failure by running g77 with -fPIC > and -O3: > > $ g77 -O3 -fPIC /play/egcs/gcc/testsuite/g77.f-torture/execute/short.f -o /tm> > /usr/tmp/cca003D7.s:136:syntax error at ( > /usr/tmp/cca003D7.s:151:syntax error at ( > /usr/tmp/cca003D7.s:162:syntax error at ( > /usr/tmp/cca003D7.s:173:syntax error at ( > (robertl) rjlhome:/play/egcs/gcc/testsuite/g77.f-torture/execute > $ g77 --version > egcs-2.90.23 980102 (egcs-1.0.1 release) > > The lines it wails about are of the form: > pushl $.LC4@GOTOFF(%ebx) > > The assembler in the case above is not GAS. It's the OpenServer 5.0.4 > assembler. GAS should complain about this as well. > > > Does EGCS 1.0.1 for GNU/Linux for x86 really emit something different, > or did you get tripped up in my obscurity in the test case? If so, I'm > sorry to have wasted your time. Yes. Thanks for clearing it up. I have so many emails to go through after coming back from a vacation :-(. -- H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)