On 02/23/2014 11:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
2.17 doesn't have support for it either, yet has support for fxsaveq
(which you can see in the patch context we check for too). Apart
from that Documentation/Changes continues to state binutils 2.12
to be the minimum requirement...
On 02/23/2014 11:56 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
2.17 doesn't have support for it either, yet has support for fxsaveq
(which you can see in the patch context we check for too). Apart
from that Documentation/Changes continues to state binutils 2.12
to be the minimum requirement...
>>> On 21.02.14 at 20:17, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.02.14 at 13:51, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>>> How old?
>>
>> 2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
>>
>
> I would *love* to kill off binutils 2.16. It was a horribly buggy
> version, and it has been hard
On 21.02.14 at 20:17, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 02/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.02.14 at 13:51, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
How old?
2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
I would *love* to kill off binutils 2.16. It was a horribly buggy
version, and it has been
On 02/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.02.14 at 13:51, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>> How old?
>
> 2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
>
I would *love* to kill off binutils 2.16. It was a horribly buggy
version, and it has been hard to deal with keeping things alive with it.
How important is
>>> On 21.02.14 at 13:51, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> How old?
2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
Jan
> On February 21, 2014 2:32:50 AM PST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
>>whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback here simply
>>is to
How old?
On February 21, 2014 2:32:50 AM PST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
>whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback here simply
>is to encode an instruction with fixed operands (%eax and %ecx).
>
>Signed-off-by: Jan
Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback here simply
is to encode an instruction with fixed operands (%eax and %ecx).
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Cc: Francesco Fusco
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: Thomas Graf
Cc:
Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback here simply
is to encode an instruction with fixed operands (%eax and %ecx).
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com
Cc: Francesco Fusco ffu...@redhat.com
Cc: Daniel
How old?
On February 21, 2014 2:32:50 AM PST, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback here simply
is to encode an instruction with fixed operands (%eax and %ecx).
On 21.02.14 at 13:51, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
How old?
2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
Jan
On February 21, 2014 2:32:50 AM PST, Jan Beulich jbeul...@suse.com wrote:
Just like for other ISA extension instruction uses we should check
whether the assembler actually supports them. The fallback
On 02/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.02.14 at 13:51, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
How old?
2.16.91.0.5 (SLE10)
I would *love* to kill off binutils 2.16. It was a horribly buggy
version, and it has been hard to deal with keeping things alive with it.
How important is
12 matches
Mail list logo
