Re: [PATCH] (Attempt to) Fix link compatibility check (was: Re:recent mips-elf linker "architecture ... incompatible" regressions)

[Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 18:04, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At 19 Mar 2002 18:01:01 -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > Warn on cpus,
> 
> This i can get, but:
> 
> > warn on lack of ASE flags (or additional ASE flags,
> > either),
> 
> This i don't understand.  Why not just merge them all into the result?
> 
> it's perfectly reasonable to combine two sets of code, one compiled
> with an ASE and one compiled without.
> 

True, but why not just add the flag to your compile on all of your
lines..?

> In fact, is it really sane to produce a mips16 binary any other way?
> (don't you typically include some mips16 code and some 'normal' mips
> code in the same binary)?  And, shouldn't that binary be marked as
> using the MIPS16 ASE?  8-)

Right, it should be. This would warn if you were trying to link mips16
code in with something else, or something else with mips16 (depending on
the order of the object files...).

-eric

-- 
I will not use abbrev.