From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11866 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2005 04:31:53 -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 11765 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2005 04:31:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 4 Mar 2005 04:31:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 6283 invoked by uid 10); 4 Mar 2005 04:31:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 8784 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2005 04:31:32 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: rsandifo@redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, ddaney@avtrex.com To: David Daney Cc: Richard Sandiford , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to fix MIPS -mno-shared with multi-got... References: <42277C17.7030608@avtrex.com> <87r7iw2yfp.fsf@firetop.home> <422790D1.8010408@avtrex.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <422790D1.8010408@avtrex.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 David Daney writes: Thanks for fixing this issue. > OK, I kind of like this idea. But I am not an ABI authority. I am > assuming the the meaning of "_gp_disp" is defined somewhere in the ABI > specs. I know _gp is specified. Does anybody have objections to > adding the new magic __gnu_local_gp symbol? The ABI defines _gp_disp. It does not define _gp. I used _gp because the GNU linker has historically defined it in the linker script. Programs which tried to use _gp as anything other than an offset into the GOT have historically not worked with the GNU linker. And as an offset into the GOT it has not always had the same value. Therefore I expect that it is safe to use _gp. I also think it would be safe to use __gnu_local_gp instead. Ian