This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [MIPS] Can we have R_MIPS_PC64?
On 2020-02-17, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020, Fangrui Song wrote:
I hope someone can add back R_MIPS_PC64.
You don't need R_MIPS_PC64. You can yield the same effect the usual
MIPS64 way, that is by composing R_MIPS_PC32 with R_MIPS_64 (similarly to
e.g. how R_MIPS_REL32 composes with R_MIPS_64).
Of course the toolchain may not as it stands support this composition.
Feel free to post patches to take care of your use case.
HTH,
Maciej
Thank you for your comments. Sorry that I cannot create a patch, as I know very little about MIPS.
I raised these MIPS issues (including the recent DT_MIPS_XHASH
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2020-01/msg00451.html) not because I
have anything to do with MIPS. I started the threads from the viewpoint
of a toolchain maintainer.
I noticed MIPS introduced complexity in a number of areas,
where other architectures can share a simple common implementation.
(It is weird that .quad foo - . is not representable on MIPS64.)
For my own selfish purposes, I will be sad if someone wants to add some
peculiar MIPS features (e.g. DT_MIPS_XHASH) to LLVM binary utilities or
lld. I hope we can get rid of things like
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72228 at some point.
I hope someone can implement PC64, or something similar for MIPS.