Talk:Multiboot1 Bare Bones: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(Re: leading underscore, cross-compiler?) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Depending on the compiler, leading underscores are either required or wrong. Also, the summary field was designed for these messages - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 17:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT) |
:Depending on the compiler, leading underscores are either required or wrong. Also, the summary field was designed for these messages - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 17:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT) |
||
::We should add either <tt>-fleading-underscore</tt> or <tt>-fno-leading-underscore</tt> to the gcc command. I'd personally prefer <tt>-fno-leading-underscore</tt> and removing all underscores from the NASM and GAS code. Any opinions on the matter? -[[User:Jhawthorn|Jhawthorn]] 19:04, 15 August 2007 (CDT) |
::We should add either <tt>-fleading-underscore</tt> or <tt>-fno-leading-underscore</tt> to the gcc command. I'd personally prefer <tt>-fno-leading-underscore</tt> and removing all underscores from the NASM and GAS code. Any opinions on the matter? -[[User:Jhawthorn|Jhawthorn]] 19:04, 15 August 2007 (CDT) |
||
:::I'd go for suggesting that a [[GCC Cross-Compiler|cross-compiler]] is the only guarantee for success - it also fixes several other things one's system compiler might try to annoy the user (things commandline arguments won't fix). Since the crosscompiler described does not add leading underscores, and the use of having them is purely legacy, I'd go for no underscores anyway. - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 04:34, 17 August 2007 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 09:34, 17 August 2007
fixed minor mistake-meshounah
- Depending on the compiler, leading underscores are either required or wrong. Also, the summary field was designed for these messages - Combuster 17:42, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
- We should add either -fleading-underscore or -fno-leading-underscore to the gcc command. I'd personally prefer -fno-leading-underscore and removing all underscores from the NASM and GAS code. Any opinions on the matter? -Jhawthorn 19:04, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
- I'd go for suggesting that a cross-compiler is the only guarantee for success - it also fixes several other things one's system compiler might try to annoy the user (things commandline arguments won't fix). Since the crosscompiler described does not add leading underscores, and the use of having them is purely legacy, I'd go for no underscores anyway. - Combuster 04:34, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
- We should add either -fleading-underscore or -fno-leading-underscore to the gcc command. I'd personally prefer -fno-leading-underscore and removing all underscores from the NASM and GAS code. Any opinions on the matter? -Jhawthorn 19:04, 15 August 2007 (CDT)