>>>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:44:40 +0100, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: ralf> Right, part of the same mistake. See the patch below which gets ralf> my test system working. The 32-bit parts are cosmetic and ralf> shouldn't change the generated code. They just make the 32-bit ralf> and 64-bit str*_user.S files almost identical. Thank you. They work fine. ralf> I'm surprised somebody still cares about 2.4 64-bit ;-) The ralf> 64-bit improvments in 2.6, especially in the area of the 32-bit ralf> compatibility code are so substancial that I don't think 2.4 is ralf> still a good choice. Yes, I agree that 2.6 is better. I just want to run 2.4 64-bit for comparison from time to time. (only when something failed on 2.6 :-)) --- Atsushi Nemoto
