Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:29:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200107271929.PAA09048@delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: eliz set sender to eliz AT delorie DOT com using -f From: Eli Zaretskii To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <3B61999B.6715A67B@hotmail.nospam.com> (message from Ian Rees on Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:40:59 -0400) Subject: Re: .mak files References: <996140448 DOT 528135 AT queeg DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <3B607842 DOT 1350BDEA AT hotmail DOT nospam DOT com> <3B60BD40 DOT 475957DD AT hotmail DOT nospam DOT com> <7263-Fri27Jul2001115339+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B61999B DOT 6715A67B AT hotmail DOT nospam DOT com> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: Ian Rees > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:40:59 -0400 > > com.c:2514 warning: ignoring pragma:argsused > ^^^^ This is probably harmless: I'd guess that pragma was for another compiler. It might be a good idea to post the offending line, though. > The other one is the same, but for line 2555 > > The warning that has me confused is: > d:/djgpp/tmp\ccCdyapr.s: Assembler messages: > d:/djgpp/tmp\ccCdyapr.s:41: Warning: indirect ljmp without '*' > ^^ > There are warnings for line number 41-56 with exactly the same > message. > > Now, because the above .s file is temporary, how can I tell what it is > doing? Look for ljmp instruction which jumps though a variable without a `*' prepended to the variable name. It should probably be on line 41 of the original .S file, or thereabouts. If you cannot figure out which line is that, add -save-temps switch to the GCC command line, and look at the .s (small s) file it leaves behind. By comparing .S and .s files, you will be able to find the offending line in the .S file. The problem with the `*' is real: it is invalid assembly to make indirect jump without an asterisk. However, I think the assembler assumes you meant `*' and produces correct code anyway.