From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13737 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2005 01:12:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13712 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2005 01:12:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO topsns.toshiba-tops.co.jp) (202.230.225.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 01:12:16 -0000 Received: from inside-ms1.toshiba-tops.co.jp by topsns.toshiba-tops.co.jp via smtpd (for sourceware.org [12.107.209.250]) with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 01:12:16 UT Received: from topsms.toshiba-tops.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.toshiba-tops.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD6A1F295; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:12:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from srd2sd.toshiba-tops.co.jp (gw-chiba7.toshiba-tops.co.jp [172.17.244.27]) by topsms.toshiba-tops.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6CB17D23; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:12:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (fragile [172.17.28.65]) by srd2sd.toshiba-tops.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3F1CD9c073158; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:12:13 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:12:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20050415.101213.75184527.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> To: macro@linux-mips.org Cc: echristo@redhat.com, drow@false.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: "Error: constant too large" on mips gas From: Atsushi Nemoto In-Reply-To: References: <20050409153120.GA7020@nevyn.them.org> <1113068818.5494.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Fingerprint: 6ACA 1623 39BD 9A94 9B1A B746 CA77 FE94 2874 D52F X-Pgp-Public-Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2874D52F Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 >>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:22:48 +0100 (BST), "Maciej W. Rozycki" said: macro> Well, I think I've got this finally resolved -- for 2.16, that macro> is. It turned out we should probably accept values with bits macro> 63:32 all set -- otherwise negation may not work for certain macro> ranges of constants. Here's the implementation: Thanks, I have no problem with this. BTW, it seems the patch is for mainline, not 2.16 branch. I hope upcomming 2.16 will contain this patch. --- Atsushi Nemoto