From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25565 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2010 13:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25546 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2010 13:53:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 20658 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2010 13:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tp.orcam.me.uk) (macro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Jul 2010 13:53:15 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Nathan Froyd cc: Richard Sandiford , binutils@sourceware.org, Chao-ying Fu , Rich Fuhler , David Lau , Kevin Mills , Ilie Garbacea , Catherine Moore , Nathan Sidwell , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: microMIPS ASE support In-Reply-To: <20100726132543.GL9110@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <87y6fa9u3t.fsf@firetop.home> <20100726132543.GL9110@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Nathan Froyd wrote: > > > Did you actually test this with n64, say with a gcc bootstrap? Same > > > comment goes for elfn32-mips.c. > > > > > > Why only do the linker relaxation for elf32-mips.c (o32, o64 & EABI)? > > > Why not for n32 and n64 too? > > > > The answer to all the questions is negative. There is no 64-bit > > microMIPS hardware available at the moment. The best bet might be QEMU -- > > NathanF, have you implemented any of the 64-bit instructions in QEMU? > > I have implemented support for the 64-bit instructions in QEMU. I > haven't really tested whether the instruction translation works > correctly for those instructions. (It should; there's nothing unusual > about the codepaths the 64-bit instructions take vs. their 32-bit > counterparts...but you never know...) OK, thanks. That's a good starting point, but still some low-level startup files will need to be updated or at least examined for correct 64-bit microMIPS support before we can link executables suitable for run-time testing such as with the GCC testsuite, let alone a full native GCC bootstrap. Maciej