Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261164AbVCML5D (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:57:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261166AbVCML5D (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:57:03 -0500 Received: from aun.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.36]:34291 "EHLO aun.it.uu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261164AbVCML46 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:56:58 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:56:51 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200503131156.j2DBup8X015801@harpo.it.uu.se> From: Mikael Pettersson To: hacksaw@hacksaw.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: indirect lcall without `*' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1086 Lines: 26 On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:46:24 -0500, Hacksaw wrote: >In compiling 2.4.29 I get this during the compilation of pci-pc.c: > >Warning: indirect lcall without `*' > >I note from looking around the net that this is an old "problem", dating back >at least to 2.4.18, if not earlier. > >What does it mean? Should I care? If I shouldn't, shouldn't there be a message >somewhere in the build process that says "This isn't a problem" so people >don't write to lkml and ask about it? It's a binutils version issue. Older binutils didn't require the '*', while newer ones print a warning when it's missing. Adding the missing '*'s breaks old binutils, which isn't considered acceptable in the stable 2.4 series. So just live with the warnings, or apply personal patches to silence them (like I've been doing for ages). /Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/