<div dir="ltr">Hi Tim, Renato,<div><br></div><div style>Revisiting this one from about a month back, is anyone tracking what GAS assembly compatibility issues remain? If we only need to compile C and C++, things are looking very good, but when you throw handwritten assembly into the mix, not so much. The goal is GAS compatibility, right? Not UAL? Or is there a hope to make both work?</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Thanks,</div><div style>Greg</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Tim Northover <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:t.p.northover@gmail.com" target="_blank">t.p.northover@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Greg,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> At this point, my biggest concern is the quality of the<br>
> ElfStreamer, and I haven't done anything to verify the linker. But<br>
> everything seems to "just work", so maybe time to go find bigger fish<br>
> to fry? What do you think? Should we flip the switch?<br>
<br>
</div>I'd be in favour of it. All of the gaps I'm aware of (haphazard build<br>
attributes mainly) are equally applicable to both integrated and GAS<br>
assembly. It's possible we mis-tag a section or a symbol somehow, but<br>
hopefully nothing substantial.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Tim.<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>