Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:26:30 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Warning patch for exceptn.S
In-Reply-To: <39478E68.31020.B60EA5@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614162344.841B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> It's worse. AS from binutils-2.9.1 refuses to accept exceptn.S after 
> patch. The same is with
> 	.byte 0x2E
> 	ljmp *foo
> 
> So we have an example where binutils-2.[89].* and 2.10 prereleases
> are incompatible.

Darn!

> Only (only partial) cure I see is not to use  -Werror
> when compiling .S files

Is there perhaps some preprocessor magic that should help us out?  I'm 
thinking about keeping the old code for older Binutils, the new one for 
v2.10 and later, and having some #ifdef or assembly-level directive to 
choose between them.  Is this possible?