From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Recent assembler sign extension patch
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:29:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001270129.37068.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090827132813.GB4668@console-pimps.org>
On Monday 25 January 2010 21:22:08 you wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 06:16:06AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I get this error:
> >
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.S: Assembler messages:
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.S:260: Error: value of
> > 00000000fffffff0 too large for field of 2 bytes at 00000000000000a0
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:60: Error: value of
> > 00000000fffffff0 too large for field of 2 bytes at 00000000000000c8
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:172: Error: value of
> > 00000000fffffff0 too large for field of 2 bytes at 000000000000013e
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:320: Error: value of
> > 00000000fffffff0 too large for field of 2 bytes at 00000000000001da
> > make[3]: *** [arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.o] Error 1
>
> See the http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg03499.html thread.
I'm sorry, what was the resolution? Changing the compiler means the kernel no
longer compiles with any existing gcc release from here forward. Also, I
applied the patch from http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg03505.html to
binutils 2.17 (the last gplv2 release), which changed the error to:
AS arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.o
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.S: Assembler messages:
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/entry.S:261: Error: value of 4294967280 too
large for field of 2 bytes at 168
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:60: Error: value of
4294967280 too large for field of 2 bytes at 208
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:172: Error: value of
4294967280 too large for field of 2 bytes at 326
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/../sh3/../../entry-common.S:320: Error: value of
4294967280 too large for field of 2 bytes at 482
Which is complaining in write.c (generic code). (The patch doesn't seem to
adjust val, it just changes the error test...)
Rob
--
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-27 7:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-27 13:28 Recent assembler sign extension patch Matt Fleming
2009-08-27 13:35 ` Paul Mundt
2009-08-27 14:39 ` Stuart MENEFY
2009-08-27 20:13 ` Matt Fleming
2009-09-14 5:12 ` Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
2009-09-14 13:26 ` Paul Mundt
2010-01-27 7:29 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2010-01-27 7:55 ` Paul Mundt
2010-01-29 7:53 ` Rob Landley
2010-01-29 15:23 ` Paul Mundt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201001270129.37068.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.