Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > Then you have the worst of both approaches: The nicely readable > disassembly will change under you feet, and you still need > relocation annotations etc. for CPU-specific fixups. The end-result > is likely more complicated and opaque than what we have now. Let say we generate handlers with all possible cpu fixups. Very few instructions would be removed so the disassembly should be quite similar after patching. And by emitting some nice comments in the generated code, it should be fairly obvious to get an idea of the final code. All fixups would be listed in a table with some flags to identify them and a list of instructions which need to be relocated. It seems to me that the kernel code would be much simpler than what we have now. Regarding the script used to generate the assembly code, if think it would be too. Thanks, Franck
