From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28927 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2005 16:09:22 -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 28556 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2005 16:09:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl) (153.19.208.7) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Feb 2005 16:09:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BBE9F5944; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pollux [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11769-05; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl (piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl [153.19.208.8]) by pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F952E1D46; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl (macro@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl [153.19.208.6]) by piorun.ds.pg.gda.pl (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1PG9744025995; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:07 +0100 Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:10:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] MIPS: Fix synthesized doubleword transfers (ping) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <87sm3lhdo1.fsf@firetop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Status: Clean X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Richard Sandiford wrote: > FWIW, I checked what the MIPSpro assembler does. Given: > > ld $4,foo > > as -32 -non_shared will generate: > > 0: 3c010000 lui at,0x0 > 0: R_MIPS_HI16 foo > 4: 8c240000 lw a0,0(at) > 4: R_MIPS_LO16 foo > 8: 8c250004 lw a1,4(at) > 8: R_MIPS_LO16 foo > > just like gas does. Not that I'm saying we should do something simply > because MIPSpro does it. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot. Bug compatibility? > [ Although, as is probably clear from earlier messages, my preference is > to keep things the way they are, and require any symbolic component to > be 8-byte aligned. I've never heard of any practical problems with that > restriction. OTOH, after the above, I don't have any new data or > arguments to add, so I'll shut up now ;) ] It works with native 64-bit transfers -- why should it be broken with their 32-bit macro counterparts? Actually I wouldn't mind ditching these macros altogether. ;-) Maciej