From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:34:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:26016 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022781AbXCZMeu (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:34:50 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2QCYkPO012476; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:34:46 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2QCYjuT012475; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:34:45 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:34:45 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Thiemo Seufer , Kumba , Linux MIPS List Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely Message-ID: <20070326123445.GA12447@linux-mips.org> References: <4603DA74.70707@gentoo.org> <20070324.002440.93023010.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <46049BAD.1010705@gentoo.org> <20070324.234727.25910303.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20070324231602.GP2311@networkno.de> <46062400.8080307@gentoo.org> <20070325144515.GB21439@networkno.de> <20070326115656.GA12086@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 14687 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:09:37PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Hmm, from the back of my head I think it should not be a problem -- IIRC > the versions of GCC that did not support explicit relocs for 64-bit ELF > would force "-mno-explicit-relocs" internally even if asked otherwise. > They did not support "-msym32" either, which went in later, and then > non-PIC support for 64-bit explicit relocs went in earlier than for PIC -- > quite unsurprisingly, as %higher() and %highest() are not necessarily > rocket science unlike %disp() and friends. > > If anybody cares I could probably make the excavations needed to verify > the above. That would be appreciated. I did that on my side, I also tried to build a few 64-bit test kernels with gcc 3.3 and 4.1.2 yesterday and did not find any real reason why we would still need -mno-explicit-relocs. Thiemo said there was something like a modern gcc in combination with old binutils. That's the comination I haven't tested. Ralf