From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-23882-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21460 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2006 17:19:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 21452 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2006 17:19:50 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from server3.netbauds.net (HELO server3.netbauds.net) (217.158.188.240)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:19:49 +0000
Received: from host86-128-21-90.range86-128.btcentralplus.com ([86.128.21.90]:24722 	"EHLO [172.16.32.4]" smtp-auth: "darryl" TLS-CIPHER: "DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA 	keybits 256/256 version TLSv1/SSLv3" TLS-PEER-CN1: <none>) 	by mail-3.netbauds.net with ESMTPSA id S4523186AbWFNRTq (ORCPT 	<rfc822;gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:19:46 +0100
Message-ID: <44904532.7000205@netbauds.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:19:00 -0000
From:	Darryl Miles <darryl-mailinglists@netbauds.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060606 SeaMonkey/1.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:	Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
CC:	gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC4 x86_64 pushfl / pop %eax inline asm ?
References: <44904061.30601@netbauds.net> <m3ver3zmv8.fsf@dhcp-172-24-103-66.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3ver3zmv8.fsf@dhcp-172-24-103-66.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Darryl Miles <darryl-mailinglists@netbauds.net> writes:
> 
>> test.s:2287: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pushf'
>> test.s:2288: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `pop'
> 
> Those errors are coming from the assembler.  This is an assembler
> issue, not a gcc issue.

Sorry yes, I meant assembler, hence the use of .s files.


> This one happens to be simple: the x86_64 does not have a pushfl
> instruction.  Read the fine manual.  The x86_64 does have a pushfq
> instruction.

Ah, I was not aware of that, I'm porting existing code and was expecting 
the same instructions to exist.  Thanks for his pointer I have now got 
my code to compile again for both targets.

Thanks for your help!

Darryl