From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cgd@broadcom.com
To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Cc: ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix distinction of 32/64bit addresses in MIPS gas
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 11:39:00 -0000
Message-id: <yov5k7zcduzu.fsf@highland.sibyte.com>
References: <20010831193107.A10362@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <mailpost.999279120.2469@postal.sibyte.com> <yov51yls6sgi.fsf@highland.sibyte.com> <20010831204556.C17249@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <mailpost.999283589.5294@postal.sibyte.com> <yov5ofow585q.fsf@highland.sibyte.com> <20010831143107.A4532@lucon.org> <yov51ylnbia1.fsf@highland.sibyte.com> <20010906105014.A32456@lucon.org> <yov5n148dwu6.fsf@highland.sibyte.com> <20010906110751.B32621@lucon.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00057.html

"H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> I think that is ok as long as R_MIPS_64 is not used for o32 binaries.
> Maybe it is time to give a new BFD target for mips64-elf since it does
> represent a different ABI which includes R_MIPS_64. R_MIPS_64 should be
> forbidden for o32 binaries.

What harm is there in allowing it, as an extension?

Only 'broken' code will generate them to begin with...



chris