Re: RFC: Adding non-PIC executable support to MIPS

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 08:52:18PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> > It sounds like we're set then?  You can check in your
> > various prerequisite binutils and gcc patches, then I can post and
> > commit final versions of these, and get the glibc / gdb patches
> > merged.  If any of the binutils patches still need review, let me
> > know.
> 
> The "PATCH [1-5]/5" GOT sequence hasn't been reviewed.  (You said you'd
> found an issue with those patches.  Have you got a testcase, or did you
> fix it yourself?)

Ah, thanks for reminding me.  I went to dig it out of my patch set and
discovered that I must have caused it myself; I deleted a bit of code
that served two purposes when I only wanted to remove one of the
purposes - and then I put it back again.

So, ignore this.

I'll look at the GOT patches tomorrow.

> There's also still the question about the ELF n64 start address.

I agree with your explanation.  I'd suggest the separate linker script
as a compromise but that involves some configure-time complexity in
GCC.  I think you and Maciej need to reach an agreement...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery