Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On the coding style side of thing... >> + movl %ebp, %ebx >> + cmpl %ebx, %eax >> + jbe 1f >> + movl %eax, %ebx > > This looks messy with different idention of the operand. > > Compare it to this: >> + movl %ebp, %ebx >> + cmpl %ebx, %eax >> + jbe 1f >> + movl %eax, %ebx > > > I like the latter more with vertical alignment of the operand. > I see that you add spaces around operators (,) - good. head_32.S was already written in the style with space (rather than tab) between opcode and operands. There was a total of three instructions that didn't follow the pattern. Re-styling the whole file is possible, of course, but should be a separate patch entirely. >> pushl %esi >> - leal _ebss(%ebp), %esi >> - leal _ebss(%ebx), %edi >> - movl $(_ebss - startup_32), %ecx >> + leal (_bss-4)(%ebp), %esi >> + leal (_bss-4)(%ebx), %edi >> + movl $(_bss - startup_32), %ecx >> + shrl $2, %ecx > > I do not see why you mess around with _bss here? > Do you use .bss for decompression? This chunk of code is about moving the initialized segments into place. Moving the contents of the bss is a bug (and it clobbers the stack, the setup of which I moved earlier in the code.) However, using _edata would give an unaligned symbol, so use _bss instead as being an aligned symbol at the beginning of the _bss; we thus move the range from startup_32 to _bss. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
