------- Additional Comments From tg at mirbsd dot de 2010-01-03 16:44 -------
I think there may be a documentation or bug issue left:
You are testing for:
ljmp 0x9090,0x90909090
ljmp 0x9090:0x90909090
jmp 0x9090,0x90909090
jmp 0x9090:0x90909090
The correct writing however is:
AT&T:
ljmp $0x9090,$0x90909090
Intel old (which is what I use, since I *must* support older as):
ljmp 0x9090,0x90909090
Intel new (which is used by other Intel assemblers):
jmp far 0x9090:0x90909090
The latter is also backed by the documentation.
However, thanks for fixing my original issue. The fix is
already in Debian experimental, so this is just for con-
sistency and so that other people dont stumble upon it.
My proposed least-intrusive fix is:
when 'jmp far' is encountered, check if we have indeed
both a segment and offset following, if yes handle it as
'ljmp', if not error out. (This may basically make 'jmp
far' a new opcode.)
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10740
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
