This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix distinction of 32/64bit addresses in MIPS gas
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix distinction of 32/64bit addresses in MIPS gas
- From: Richard Sandiford <r dot sandiford at redhat dot com>
- Date: 06 Sep 2001 19:56:44 +0100
- Cc: cgd at broadcom dot com, ica2_ts at csv dot ica dot uni-stuttgart dot de,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010831193107.A10362@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20010831204556.C17249@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20010831143107.A4532@lucon.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20010906105014.A32456@lucon.org> <email@example.com> <20010906110751.B32621@lucon.org>
"H . J . Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.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.
I feel I'm missing something here, so sorry if I'm going round in
circles. I'm just not sure I understand what the problem is.
AFAIK, R_MIPS_64 won't be used unless you have 64-bit addresses (and
hence 64-bit registers), or if you have an explicit pseudo-op like
.8byte. o32 binaries wouldn't be using either of those things anyway,
I thought the consensus some time ago was that o32 implied 32-bit
registers, and therefore 32-bit addresses. The HAVE_??BIT_ macros are
already set up like that as long as you specify -mabi=32 on the command
So AFAICT the current set-up supports what I think of as "o32 binaries"
-- with the appropriate command-line switches -- and it also (hopefully)
supports the more ad-hoc ABIs that were supported by earlier versions.