From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-39739-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29770 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2005 19:37:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 29731 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2005 19:37:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx01.qsc.de) (213.148.129.14)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 19:37:34 -0000
Received: from port-195-158-168-78.dynamic.qsc.de ([195.158.168.78] helo=hattusa.textio)
	by mx01.qsc.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 1DMWcp-0008Ve-00; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:37:11 +0200
Received: from ths by hattusa.textio with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DMWcp-0007gH-BR; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:37:11 +0200
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:37:00 -0000
To: Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>, newlib@sources.redhat.com,
	binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgd@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [patch] adjust libgloss addresses for 64-bit
Message-ID: <20050415193711.GI21496@hattusa.textio>
References: <1113516346.4591.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050414223754.GI32470@hattusa.textio> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0504151124070.23166@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20050415112755.GA21496@hattusa.textio> <1113583807.4591.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1113583807.4591.67.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2

Eric Christopher wrote:
> 
> > >  So what should "la $2,0x80000000($3)" do when using 64-bit addresses?  
> > > Replace/supplement the offset with a symbol as suitable...
> > 
> > Hm, looks like we break somebody's assumptions regardless what we do.
> > So leaving la as it is and warn about its use seems to be best.
> 
> 
> To warn we should do two things:
> 
> 1) Turn HAVE_64BIT_OBJECTS back to HAVE_64BIT_ADDRESSES in do_la.
> 2) Warn if we have O_constant as the type and it isn't a sign-extended
> 32-bit number.

Agreed. Maybe we can make la invalid for 64bit register after 2.16.


Thiemo