This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] MIPS64: A 32-bit address range fix

On 8 Jul 2002, Eric Christopher wrote:

> >  No.  Should I?  Especially with gcc ~2.95.4 I'm using?  The code
> > generated now is definitely broken for the case I described. 
> Probably, as long as there aren't any regressions in the gcc that you
> are using that'll be fine for me. I agree that it is broken, and a
> binutils testcase would be nice, but a sanity check with gcc is always
> appreciated as well.

 I don't see any relevance here, sorry.  The range of addresses that is
affected, i.e. 0xffffffff7fff8000 to 0xffffffff7fffffff, is invalid on
MIPS64 -- references to it always generate an address error exception. 
How can gcc make any use of it?

 I ran the test anyway and the only failure relevant to binutils is
because of a "la used to load 64-bit address" gas warning.  Most tests
fail because of missing crt1.o -- I have no libc and I cannot do anything
about it at this stage. 

 OK to apply, then?


+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]