[PATCH] LD/PE: Remove remains of MIPS target support

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:

> >> Remove the relevant pieces then, originally from commit 344a211f9995 
> >> ("Add support for WinCE based toolchains."), including MIPS architecture 
> >> parts and HI16/LO16 relocation support in particular.
> >> ---
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>  This has passed my usual verification, including `aarch64-pe', `arm-pe', 
> >> `arm-wince-pe', `i686-pe', `mcore-pe', `sh-pe', and `x86_64-mingw32' 
> >> targets among others.  It can't be ruled out however that there are gaps 
> >> in coverage, so please let me know if you think there's anything I may 
> >> have overlooked with this change.
> >>
> >>  Otherwise OK to apply?
> > 
> > One question first: Is ...
> > 
> >> @@ -1699,19 +1688,6 @@ generate_reloc (bfd *abfd, struct bfd_li
> >>  		      reloc_data[total_relocs].type = IMAGE_REL_BASED_HIGHLOW;
> >>  		      total_relocs++;
> >>  		      break;
> >> -		    case BITS_AND_SHIFT (16, 0):
> >> -		      reloc_data[total_relocs].type = IMAGE_REL_BASED_LOW;
> >> -		      total_relocs++;
> >> -		      break;
> >> -		    case BITS_AND_SHIFT (16, 16):
> >> -		      reloc_data[total_relocs].type = IMAGE_REL_BASED_HIGHADJ;
> >> -		      /* FIXME: we can't know the symbol's right value
> >> -			 yet, but we probably can safely assume that
> >> -			 CE will relocate us in 64k blocks, so leaving
> >> -			 it zero is safe.  */
> >> -		      reloc_data[total_relocs].extra = 0;
> >> -		      total_relocs++;
> >> -		      break;
> >>  		    case BITS_AND_SHIFT (26, 2):
> >>  		      reloc_data[total_relocs].type =
> >>                          IMAGE_REL_BASED_ARM_MOV32;
> >> @@ -1765,9 +1741,6 @@ generate_reloc (bfd *abfd, struct bfd_li
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>        reloc_sz += 2;
> >> -
> >> -      if (reloc_data[i].type == IMAGE_REL_BASED_HIGHADJ)
> >> -	reloc_sz += 2;
> >>      }
> >>  
> >>    reloc_sz = (reloc_sz + 3) & ~3;	/* 4-byte align.  */
> > 
> > ... all of this positively MIPS-only, i.e. not (unexpectedly) re-used by any
> > other target?
> 
> As I'd like to see this go in, for me to then re-base my patch over it, can we
> get this aspect sorted?

 I agree.  Would the cc'd maintainers of the other PE targets please 
confirm or deny that these high-part/low-part relocations are used by 
their respective platforms (ISTM they are not, so I chose to remove that 
code as dead with the removal of MIPS support, but I'll appreciate a 
second opinion)?

  Maciej