From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Franz Sirl Message-Id: <200112052124.4573@enzo.bigblue.local> To: Tom Rini , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: Changes to PPC Linux required for GCC 3.1 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:30:10 +0100 Cc: Corey Minyard , Franz Sirl , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, paulus@samba.org References: <20011205173728.GB27936@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> <20011205175038.27184@smtp.adsl.oleane.com> <20011205194522.GA28241@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> In-Reply-To: <20011205194522.GA28241@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wednesday 05 December 2001 20:45, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:50:38PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > >I think the reason this wasn't applied is that Paul said something about > > >thiws being horriyingly ugly. Corey, can you post a patch that changes > > >RELOC(x) into a function and nothing else? :) > > > > I prefer this beeing resolved at compile time. The reason Paul didn't > > want it at first is because he didn't want a workaround for a pre-release > > gcc bug. Since this is becoming a "feature", it makes sense to get the > > workaround. Paulus will confirm or not what I'm saying though... > > This was actually being hit by a 3.0.x release at the time I think (and > we worked around it another way). I'd prefer a clean function over an > ugly macro any day :) I don't understand how my patch makes the RELOC hack uglier than it is already by itself ;-). The few affected files should really be reworked to be compiled with something like -fPIC -mrelocateable (maybe with -msdata and setup r12 accordingly). Franz. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/