From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26341 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2002 03:37:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26332 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 03:37:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.linux.org.uk) (195.92.249.252) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 03:37:50 -0000 Received: from willy by www.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 3.33 #5) id 170a4r-0000mH-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:37:49 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:44:00 -0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Robert Dewar Cc: willy@debian.org, dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PA specifies invalid T_ADAFLAGS Message-ID: <20020425043749.B32191@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20020425032613.3C7BAF28D4@nile.gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020425032613.3C7BAF28D4@nile.gnat.com>; from dewar@gnat.com on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:26:13PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01278.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:26:13PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > I see nothing in GNAT's use of virtual indexing that would guarantee > avoidance of sr 1, 2 or 3 in the base address (i.e. the address BEFORE > indexing). Perhaps you are right, but it would take careful analysis. I think there's a misunderstanding. If GNAT simply uses standard addresses from 0 to 2^32-1 there is no problem. If GNAT tries to take advantage of PA's space register facilities to address more than 4GB simultaneously, then it simply won't work under PA Linux. -- Revolutions do not require corporate support.