From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:24:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from mx01.qsc.de ([IPv6:::ffff:213.148.129.14]:49293 "EHLO mx01.qsc.de") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:23:44 +0100 Received: from port-195-158-170-19.dynamic.qsc.de ([195.158.170.19] helo=hattusa.textio) by mx01.qsc.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1DvEZg-0004SB-00; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:25:24 +0200 Received: from ths by hattusa.textio with local (Exim 4.52) id 1DvEZg-0006Nv-Fe; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:25:24 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:25:24 +0200 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Alexander Voropay , Kishore K , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: bal instruction in gcc 3.x Message-ID: <20050720132524.GL2071@hattusa.textio> References: <20050719164427.GB8758@linux-mips.org> <1121802786.7285.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <010901c58d28$15e2a3b0$6cf9a8c0@ALEC> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Thiemo Seufer 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: 8580 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: ths@networkno.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Alexander Voropay wrote: > > > 3) AFAIK (correct me), there is no MIPS-specific RELOC type for > > the "branch" instruction format in the BFD, so "bal" to the *external* > > symbols is impossible. > > There is a reloc called BFD_RELOC_16_PCREL_S2 which is used for branches > by BFD internally, but unfortunately the original SysV ELF supplement for > MIPS failed to define an appropriate relocation for this purpose (there is > useless R_MIPS_PC16, though), so there is nothing to map this internal > relocation to. There were discussions as to whether reuse R_MIPS_PC16 for > branches or not. Unfortunately I don't remember the conclusion -- you'd > have to find it out yourself. It is ok to reuse it, but nobody has done the work yet. Thiemo