Summary D vs E:
- no suffix
=> works equally in both releases
=> same opcodes in all .code segments
- suffix "w"
=> works equally in both releases
=> opcodes in .code32/.code64 differ from .code16 (660f..)
=> .code16 matches the non-suffix opcodes (0f..)
- suffix "l"
=> failures in Disco, works in Eoan
=> .code16 opcodes match the non-.code16 of the "w" suffix (660f..)
=> .code32/.code64 are back to the base opcode (0f..)
=> If I remove the failing .code64 from disco then .code16/.code32 is the same as in Eoan
- suffix "q"
=> different failures in Disco and Eoan
=> in Disco .code16/.code32 fails
=> in Disco .code64 generates the basic opcode (0f..)
=> in Eoan all three .code segments fail
Therefore it seems this part had major changes.
Not sure what to do, is this a bug in binutils that needs to be fixed?
Or was it a bug in IPXE that now is exposed?
I'd appreciate help by binutils-people.
@Doko when you read that you might ask some of your contacts maybe?
Summary D vs E:
- no suffix
=> works equally in both releases
=> same opcodes in all .code segments
- suffix "w"
=> works equally in both releases
=> opcodes in .code32/.code64 differ from .code16 (660f..)
=> .code16 matches the non-suffix opcodes (0f..)
- suffix "l"
=> failures in Disco, works in Eoan
=> .code16 opcodes match the non-.code16 of the "w" suffix (660f..)
=> .code32/.code64 are back to the base opcode (0f..)
=> If I remove the failing .code64 from disco then .code16/.code32 is the same as in Eoan
- suffix "q"
=> different failures in Disco and Eoan
=> in Disco .code16/.code32 fails
=> in Disco .code64 generates the basic opcode (0f..)
=> in Eoan all three .code segments fail
Therefore it seems this part had major changes.
Not sure what to do, is this a bug in binutils that needs to be fixed?
Or was it a bug in IPXE that now is exposed?
I'd appreciate help by binutils-people.
@Doko when you read that you might ask some of your contacts maybe?