From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32454 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2010 10:25:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 32439 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2010 10:25:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org (HELO cvs.linux-mips.org) (78.24.191.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:25:41 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:50377 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1490981Ab0JXKZd (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:25:33 +0200 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:25:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] MIPS/GAS/test: Run the LD test with forward references In-Reply-To: <87bp72l59c.fsf@firetop.home> Message-ID: References: <87bp72l59c.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Any particular reason we take this approach these days? I understand > > with the old relaxation code resolving such things was somewhat tricky if > > possible at all, but I see no reason for the extra NOP to be emitted to > > the variant frags as a need arises these days. In no case it would seem > > the dependency would cross beyond a variant frag to any code that follows > > so no need to fear choosing the second variant would cause any NOPs to be > > missing to satisfy code after the frag it would seem (to me anyway). > > No particular reason, no. It just wasn't part of the motivation for > the original relaxation changes. Improving the quality of MIPS I code > is always very low down the priority list. It depends for whom. ;) I do accept the reality though. Thanks for the explanation. It looks a little bit involving to me, so I'll defer it for the time being and see if I can squeeze it in the 2.22's timeframe. :) > > gas/testsuite/ > > * gas/mips/ld.s: Adjust to let data objects be only > > defined/declared (as appropriate) at the end of assembly, based > > on the presence or not of the "forward" symbol. > > * gas/mips/ld-f.d: New test. > > * gas/mips/mips1@ld-f.d: Likewise. MIPS I version. > > * gas/mips/r3000@ld-f.d: Likewise, R3000 version. > > * gas/mips/ecoff@ld-f.d: Likewise, ECOFF version. > > * gas/mips/r3900@ecoff@ld-f.d: Likewise, R3900/ECOFF version. > > * gas/mips/mips2@ecoff@ld-f.d: Likewise, MIPS II/ECOFF version. > > * gas/mips/mips32@ecoff@ld-f.d: Likewise, MIPS32/ECOFF version. > > * gas/mips/mips32r2@ecoff@ld-f.d: Likewise, MIPS32r2/ECOFF > > version. > > * gas/mips/ld-n32-f.d: New test. > > * gas/mips/ld-n64-f.d: Likewise. > > * gas/mips/mips.exp: Run the new tests. > > Let's use "-forward" rather than "-f", for consistency with the > symbol name and to avoid any possible confusion with "floating point". > > OK otherwise, thanks. Committed with your suggestion applied now, thanks. Maciej