From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15960 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2005 12:58:16 -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 15876 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2005 12:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl) (153.19.208.7) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Apr 2005 12:58:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pollux.ds.pg.gda.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0D6E1C7B; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:58:01 +0200 (CEST) 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 20010-04; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:58:01 +0200 (CEST) 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 91D50E1C6E; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:58:01 +0200 (CEST) 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 j3ICvpdo004680; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:57:51 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:58:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: cgd@broadcom.com Cc: Paul Koning , ths@networkno.de, echristo@redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] adjust libgloss addresses for 64-bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1113516346.4591.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050414223754.GI32470@hattusa.textio> <1113583817.4591.68.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050415171813.GG21496@hattusa.textio> <16991.64361.508338.807589@gargle.gargle.HOWL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Status: Clean X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00476.txt.bz2 On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 cgd@broadcom.com wrote: > > With, "li" vs "dli" the definition is rather obvious and unambiguous. > > It's not with "la" vs "dla". With the (n)64 ABI what should the > > following macros expand to: > > [ ... ] > > Whatever SGI's assembler expands them into? 8-) Well, but does it actually fit all the variations of -mabi=/-march= that we implement? I have no access to that tool, so I can't tell... > With warnings for where that differs from historic GNU binutils > behaviour? Well, I'd rather warn about dangerous constructs. Finding out the difference to historic GNU binutils behaviour may be tough as for the corner cases the sets will be different depending on the version chosen. If you're careful enough with that choice, you may actually end up with disjoint sets... Trivial cases, like "la $2, 0" are likely to have always worked as expected. ;-) Maciej