From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 990 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2010 08:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 980 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2010 08:45:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:45:24 +0000 Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so5561536wyf.0 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.157.11 with SMTP id z11mr7444829wbw.122.1288601121939; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richards-desktop.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b30sm4964911wbb.10.2010.11.01.01.45.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:45:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" ,binutils@sourceware.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS/GAS: Fix NewABI reloc handling with the LD/SD macro References: <87wrp6m03j.fsf@firetop.home> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Sun\, 31 Oct 2010 22\:46\:25 +0000 \(GMT\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> This may be a known bug, and is certainly nothing to do with your patches, >> but I notice: >> >> ld $4,0x7ffc($5) >> >> fails to work correctly (or trigger a diagnostic) in o32 mode. >> 0x8000 works fine of course. > > You didn't like my patch addressing this issue back here: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-02/msg00610.html > > (originally here: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-06/msg00530.html) > > but I've kept maintaining it locally over the years (and got it up to > 2.20; obviously with the recent changes it'll require an update, but I > planned to do that anyway while upgrading the RPM packages I maintain). > If you'd like me to get it refreshed and resubmitted, then I am all for > it. No, I stand by what I said there. IMO the reloc case isn't interesting for the reasons discussed in that thread. The o(b) case _is_ interesting because it is inconsistent with the corresponding o(b) behaviour for unaligned loads and stores. Richard