The Linux binutils vs. the FSF binutils on Linux/mips

[Richard Sandiford]

"H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:36:42PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > FYI, the Linux binutils contains a 64bit MIPS ELF patch which doesn't
> > > exist in the FSF binutils. At first, I thought this 64bit MIPS ELF
> > > patch shouldn't affect the 32bit MIPS ELF. But for some reason, I
> > > cannot get a stable 32bit Linux/mips kernel without this 64bit MIPS ELF
> > > patch. I compared kernels generated by 2 linkers from the same input.
> > > They are identical. Then I compared the object files generated from
> > > 2 assemblers. Some of them are different. Here is one example:
> > 
> > Are there more interesting differences elsewhere?  That one's a no-op
> 
> I don't know. Quite a few object files are different. I am enclosing
> another one here.

Unless I'm missing something, this one looks like a no-op too.  The
+ side isn't filling the delay slot of the call to tty_drivers_read_proc(),
and all the branches are being adjusted to match.

> The - side is generated by the Linux binutils, which generates the
> working kernel. Well, I thought there should be no differnce in object
> files.

Is there any change of isolating the code that (apparently) improves
delay slot handling, back that out of the Linux version, and see if
there's still any difference?

Richard