>>>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:44:40 +0100, Ralf Baechle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 :-))