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

[Jan Beulich]

On 18.08.2025 12:12, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 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)?

Sadly by experience I wouldn't expect any replies there. But maybe I can
be positively surprised ...

(My personal take is that at least the "case BITS_AND_SHIFT (16, 0):"
part may better be left in.)

Jan