Re: [PATCH RFA] small fix to MIPS abi selection/decoding.

[cgd at broadcom dot com]

At Sat, 9 Mar 2002 16:25:47 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Before you go ahead and commit this, make Eric and/or Thiemo think
> about the long discussion we had w.r.t. this.  I think we had decided
> that defaulting to o32 based on MIPS1/MIPS2 made sense (that's
> traditional) but defaulting to o32 based on GPR size and including
> MIPS32 in it didn't.  In other words, that the check was actually
> "correct", or at least as we wanted it.

"OK, guys, what were you thinking here?"


Daniel, I went and looked at your comments on the msg:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-12/msg00436.html

(Which looks like where the patch was posted), and I didn't see any
real explanation for why MIPS32/MIPS64 weren't included.

I do see the note:

> I hit an inconsistency.  MIPS32 is marked !ISA_HAS_64BIT_REGS.  But
> they normally run with file_mips_gp32 == 0.  The patch will default it
> to 1.  This should (I hope) make no difference, because of
> HAVE_32BIT_GPRS also checking the ISA.  Also, testsuite entries start
> failing, because the file is tagged as O32 rather than as noabi.
> 
> Similarly if I default to O64 for MIPS64 I have a problem.

I'd guess that the testsuite entries failing for mips32/O32 and
mips64/O64 were because of the other bogosity i pointed out in my
message, but since you didn't say which the failures were I can't say
for sure.


(Also, ignoring mips32 and mips64... why wouldn't mips5 default to o64
like mips3 and mips4 do?)



chris