[patch] adjust libgloss addresses for 64-bit
Maciej W. Rozycki
Fri Apr 15 17:03:00 GMT 2005
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > > > leaving us with a zero-extended value in a register which is
> > > > unpredictable as far as the standard (and at least one chip out there)
> > Hmm, 0x80000000 should be a valid XKUSEG address...
> Nothing wrong with the address, but it's loaded as:
> ori $2,0x8000
> dsll $2,$2,0x10
> so it's zero extended and not sign extended as it should be.
Of course it is zero-extended. Otherwise it would be a different one;
actually in the CKSEG0 space rather than XKUSEG. If you want the former,
what's wrong with 0xffffffff80000000? -- please keep in mind we are
talking about 64-bit addressing.
More information about the Newlib