From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:17:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from nevyn.them.org ([IPv6:::ffff:66.93.172.17]:56284 "EHLO nevyn.them.org") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:17:11 +0100 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A1rid-0007uu-U2; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:16:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:16:59 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eric Christopher Cc: Thiemo Seufer , Alexandre Oliva , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Atsushi Nemoto , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: recent binutils and mips64-linux Message-ID: <20030923181659.GA30037@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eric Christopher , Thiemo Seufer , Alexandre Oliva , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Atsushi Nemoto , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <1063988420.2537.5.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com> <20030919164119.GH13578@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20030922233952.GR13578@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1064280106.21720.0.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com> <20030923081447.GS13578@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1064340070.21720.14.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1064340070.21720.14.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i 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: 3273 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: dan@debian.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:01:11AM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > > > > > objcopy? > > > > You mean, let gcc generate n64 code, stuff it in n32 objects, and > > objcopy it back to n64? Well, it may work, but it looks more like > > a test of binutils sign-extension handling than a straightforward > > way of creating kernels to me. > > > > Besides, as soon as gcc handles 64bit expansions itself we need > > such an option anyway. > > I'm still trying to figure out why you are going through such weird > contortions at all. I understand not having an elf64 loader. That's what > the objcopy comment was for, everything else I don't understand. Why not > compile for the abi you want? Compare the optimal way to load an address into a register when you have a full 64-bit address space and when you know that addresses are sign extended. I'm told it saves over 100K of code. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer