From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29836 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2013 20:39:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29770 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2013 20:39:01 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:39:00 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VB9kY-0004ru-2g from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 13:38:58 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 18 Aug 2013 13:38:57 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:38:55 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VB9kU-0006iK-Nk; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:38:54 +0000 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:39:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Jack Carter CC: "libc-ports@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] MIPS ifunc for glibc In-Reply-To: <4CEFBC1BE64A8048869F799EF2D2EEEE01AAE1FA@BADAG02.ba.imgtec.org> Message-ID: References: <4CEFBC1BE64A8048869F799EF2D2EEEE01AAE1FA@BADAG02.ba.imgtec.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On Sat, 17 Aug 2013, Jack Carter wrote: > This is the initial MIPS ifunc patch for glibc. This patch should be > applied in conjunction with the binutils patch. Do you have an ABI document specifying all the relevant semantics, for all three ABIs? Why aren't you consistently passing the HWCAP value to resolver functions (it seems some places pass it but others don't)? If you don't pass it from the start, it could be problematic to change the ABI later to start passing it, as applications' IFUNC resolvers wouldn't know if they are being run with a glibc version that passes the HWCAP value to them or not. The ABI document should presumably specify what arguments get passed to the resolver function.... > + case R_MIPS_IRELATIVE: > + { > + ElfW(Addr) value; > + > + /* The address for the got entry storing the address for the */ > + /* ifunc routine is in this relocation. To get the address of */ > + /* the function to use on this machine the ifunc routine is run */ > + /* and its return value is the address which is then put back */ > + /* into the got entry. */ Ordinary multi-line comment, please. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com