This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: The Linux binutils vs. the FSF binutils on Linux/mips
"H . J . Lu" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:36:42PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > FYI, the Linux binutils contains a 64bit MIPS ELF patch which doesn't
> > > exist in the FSF binutils. At first, I thought this 64bit MIPS ELF
> > > patch shouldn't affect the 32bit MIPS ELF. But for some reason, I
> > > cannot get a stable 32bit Linux/mips kernel without this 64bit MIPS ELF
> > > patch. I compared kernels generated by 2 linkers from the same input.
> > > They are identical. Then I compared the object files generated from
> > > 2 assemblers. Some of them are different. Here is one example:
> > Are there more interesting differences elsewhere? That one's a no-op
> I don't know. Quite a few object files are different. I am enclosing
> another one here.
Unless I'm missing something, this one looks like a no-op too. The
+ side isn't filling the delay slot of the call to tty_drivers_read_proc(),
and all the branches are being adjusted to match.
> The - side is generated by the Linux binutils, which generates the
> working kernel. Well, I thought there should be no differnce in object
Is there any change of isolating the code that (apparently) improves
delay slot handling, back that out of the Linux version, and see if
there's still any difference?