From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id g1PKLGs28141 for linux-mips-outgoing; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:21:16 -0800 Received: from mx.mips.com (mx.mips.com [206.31.31.226]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1PKLB928134; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:21:11 -0800 Received: from newman.mips.com (ns-dmz [206.31.31.225]) by mx.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA24373; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from copfs01.mips.com (copfs01 [192.168.205.101]) by newman.mips.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA14534; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from copsun18.mips.com (copsun18 [192.168.205.28]) by copfs01.mips.com (8.11.4/8.9.0) with ESMTP id g1PJKUA05311; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:20:30 +0100 (MET) From: Hartvig Ekner Received: (from hartvige@localhost) by copsun18.mips.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) id UAA27344; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:21:00 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200202251921.UAA27344@copsun18.mips.com> Subject: Re: Setting up of GP in static, non-PIC version of glibc? To: ralf@oss.sgi.com (Ralf Baechle) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:21:00 +0100 (MET) Cc: js@convergence.de (Johannes Stezenbach), hartvige@mips.com (Hartvig Ekner), linux-mips@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20020225193928.A4385@dea.linux-mips.net> from "Ralf Baechle" at Feb 25, 2002 07:39:28 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Ralf Baechle writes: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:31:41PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > BTW: Who is "we"? Do you mean global data optimization is broken > > in gcc/binutils or just that no one at SGI is using it? > > It's an ECOFF specific optimization that just has been forward ported into > the ELF world. And what does this have to do with SGI anyway? I still don't get it. Why would one not use GP optimization with non-shared non-PIC code? It certainly is used throughout in the non-Linux MIPS world, and on the limited testing I did today it also worked fine. Is there something which is known not to work, or some conflict somewhere which prevents the general use of GP? /Hartvig From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hartvig Ekner Message-ID: <200202251921.UAA27344@copsun18.mips.com> Subject: Re: Setting up of GP in static, non-PIC version of glibc? Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:21:00 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <20020225193928.A4385@dea.linux-mips.net> from "Ralf Baechle" at Feb 25, 2002 07:39:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com To: Ralf Baechle Cc: Johannes Stezenbach , Hartvig Ekner , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20020225192100.5dKxmHkEEWFKVaWLdRrk4ex0ZmN_A_gF4z-WN3-qa3g@z> Ralf Baechle writes: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:31:41PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > BTW: Who is "we"? Do you mean global data optimization is broken > > in gcc/binutils or just that no one at SGI is using it? > > It's an ECOFF specific optimization that just has been forward ported into > the ELF world. And what does this have to do with SGI anyway? I still don't get it. Why would one not use GP optimization with non-shared non-PIC code? It certainly is used throughout in the non-Linux MIPS world, and on the limited testing I did today it also worked fine. Is there something which is known not to work, or some conflict somewhere which prevents the general use of GP? /Hartvig