[patch] adjust libgloss addresses for 64-bit

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

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.

  Maciej