Talk:Multiboot1 Bare Bones

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)

main -> kmain

I was the one who originally decided to use main() as function name. I changed my mind, because of the possibility of brain-dead compiler option choices resulting in a main()-related linker error, which might be less confusing if the function in the code is called kmain() instead. Solar 07:01, 27 February 2008 (CST)

64 bits

Hello from a new user.

I tried to assemble stuff from this article, but it was no go:

loader.s:21: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
loader.s:22: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'

While browsing, I encountered indications it might be my architecture (64bit AMD). I know that cross-compiler would do the job (for 32 bit), but couldn't the code instead be written in such way, so that it is cross-architecture instead? That way, I'd have the solution for both architectures (no need for replacement code to this), and possibly wouldn't need to build a cross compiler at this point (very, very early).

Also, it would be very good if someone could explain, line by line, what's happening here.
In any case, looks like a small, but a very important rewrite is in order.

So, in short:

• Is it architecture specific?
• Any ideas about a workaround?
• Can someone explain the (new!) code?

--Paxcoder 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)