This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Performance counter opcodes for MIPS R1[02]000
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:44:45PM -0700, cgd@sibyte.com wrote:
> dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu ("Daniel Jacobowitz") writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:45:56AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > cgd@sibyte.com wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > The selection of t0 for that register name, for a binary unmarked with
> > > > ABI, is a change, and I don't understand why it's correct.
> > >
> > > Ah, now I understand Your concern. I wasn't aware of the fact that
> > > there are unmarked binaries. I thought the use of ABI-flags was
> > > mandatory in ELF.
> >
> > Nope. Not only does, for instance, Linux/MIPS not use them - it would
> > be ABI-noncompliant to use them, unless I misread the psABI. Only
> > noreorder, pic, cpic, and the four arch bits are defined for e_flags in
> > o32.
>
> the psABI version that you're talking about is the one at:
>
> http://www.sco.com/developer/devspecs/mipsabi.pdf
>
> (MIPS RISC Processor Supplement 3rd Edition)?
>
>
> Not only does it only define those e_flags bits, but it doesn't define
> what the EF_MIPS_ARCH bits actually mean, and indicates that only
> those with EF_MIPS_ARCH bits set to all 0 are ABI-compliant!
>
> It also donsn't seem to provide much friendliness to little-endian
> MIPS. 8-)
Indeed. The trick is updating it without causing incompatibilities
with existing systems - that notice the changed e_flags and gripe.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer