From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12848 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2013 17:03:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12837 invoked by uid 89); 12 Apr 2013 17:03:35 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,TW_IB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:03:34 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UQhNr-0004AV-Sy from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:03:31 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:03:31 -0700 Received: from [172.30.64.43] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:03:30 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:35:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: David Daney CC: "Moore, Catherine" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: Many warnings in MIPS port (Was: [PATCH] [MIPS] microMIPS gcc support) In-Reply-To: <51683A46.6020506@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <871ubukhs7.fsf@talisman.default> <87d2vdtv3x.fsf@talisman.default> <871ubhem70.fsf@talisman.default> <878v5jp4xl.fsf@talisman.default> <874ng7p1lr.fsf@talisman.default> <8738vp7nfn.fsf@talisman.default> <87boad5gav.fsf@talisman.default> <87620k5mh1.fsf@talisman.default> <87sj3m4h8j.fsf@talisman.default> <51683A46.6020506@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00838.txt.bz2 On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, David Daney wrote: > I just tried to bootstrap on o32 Debian. This system has binutils 2.20.1. > > Here is a sample of the resulting failure when building the libjava target > libs: > . > . > . > /home/daney/gccsvn/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/daney/gccsvn/build/./gcc/ > -B/usr/local/mips-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ > -B/usr/local/mips-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem > /usr/local/mips-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem > /usr/local/mips-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. > -I../../../../trunk/libjava/libltdl -g -O2 -minterlink-mips16 -c > ../../../../trunk/libjava/libltdl/ltdl.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/ltdl.o > /tmp/cckECtVQ.s: Assembler messages: > /tmp/cckECtVQ.s:12: Warning: Tried to set unrecognized symbol: nomicromips > > /tmp/cckECtVQ.s:115: Warning: Tried to set unrecognized symbol: nomicromips > > /tmp/cckECtVQ.s:161: Warning: Tried to set unrecognized symbol: nomicromips > . > . > . > > There are literally thousands and thousands of these warnings. Thanks for the report, I guess GCC should: 1. Detect in its `configure' script if GAS supports the pseudo-op and refrain from producing it if it does not (or actually perhaps it may never produce it by default as GAS defaults to the nomicromips mode anyway); we have precedents for that already. 2. Refuse the -mmicromips option and terminate if GAS does not support the micromips mode; we have precedents for that too. 3. If support for pure-microMIPS processors is added in the future, then refuse to select that processor (with -march=) or being configured for that processor by default (with a `configure' option) altogether unless GAS supports the micromips mode. Thoughts? Maciej