From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CDWan-00079D-DU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:13:37 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CDWam-00077v-2m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:13:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CDWal-00077i-TD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:13:35 -0400
Received: from [62.210.158.45] (helo=quito.magic.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CDWU1-0006B9-3B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:06:37 -0400
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (ppp-181.net-555.magic.fr [62.210.255.181])
	by quito.magic.fr (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i91N5Nv19639
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Patch: Sparc system support
From: "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410011752210.7896@wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
References: <BAY12-F1720N39x6HHG00019d45@hotmail.com>
	<415C874B.6070307@bellard.org> <20041001141029.GA19335@cs.unibo.it>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0410011752210.7896@wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1096672003.10524.16.camel@rapid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:06:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 18:00, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Renzo Davoli wrote:
> 
> > In fact there is something wrong in the op.h file:
> >
> > Line 4778:
> > case INDEX_op_fitos: {
> >     extern void op_fitos();
> >     memcpy(gen_code_ptr, (void *)((char *)&op_fitos+0), 56);
> >     *(uint16_t *)(gen_code_ptr + 26) = ((long)(&) + 0 + 0x8000) >> 16;
> >     *(uint16_t *)(gen_code_ptr + 30) = ((long)(&) + 0);
> >     gen_code_ptr += 56;
> > }
> >
> > (long)(&) .... the operand is missing.
> 
> This most likely means that your op.o has a relocation without a proper
> symbol name. This can happen if a relocation is split into loword
> and hiword on some architectures. What host are you compiling for?

I also had issues like this with PPC some opcodes. I noticed that this
happened when gcc uses local variables. The solution I found was to
rewrite some micro-operations to make them simpler to compile and make
others helper functions (so the micro-op is just a function call), for
the more complex ones.

-- 
J. Mayer <l_indien@magic.fr>
Never organized