This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCHv2, MIPS] Add support for O32 FPXX and program header based ABI information
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>, Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Rich Fuhler <Rich dot Fuhler at imgtec dot com>, "macro at codesourcery dot com" <macro at codesourcery dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:59:11 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCHv2, MIPS] Add support for O32 FPXX and program header based ABI information
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235352F38D at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405141549300 dot 16785 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235352FF45 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405142119340 dot 21615 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235353041B at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405151517380 dot 3155 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B02353531C1D at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405152012500 dot 911 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B02353532EB3 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405161523480 dot 18605 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <87ppj2f9g6 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1406021726390 dot 19591 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <87lhtf9pgq dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > - are you saying there is some existing Solaris-style check somewhere
> > (where?) that disallows such a combination from executing on hardware
> > lacking the features for all of the objects, even if the relevant
> > instructions are only executed conditionally? Or that some other
> > combinations get disallowed at static link time?
>
> No, I was arguing that taking the superset was the right behaviour.
> You seemed to be saying that we should allow -mmsa to be used for
> individual objects without marking the linked output as -mmsa
> (because the functions in the -mmsa input object might all be
> protected by a runtime check for MSA).
I'm talking about the overall effect for the toolchain as a whole: that it
should allow building and running code using such runtime checks, without
requiring it to use IFUNCs.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com