From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20)
	id 19Nh4y-0002lc-Vb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:50:00 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20)
	id 19Nh37-0001dQ-KV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:48:06 -0400
Received: from smtp6.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.28] helo=mwinf0302.wanadoo.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
	id 19Ngyf-0000I6-B7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:43:29 -0400
Received: from free.fr (unknown [81.53.133.197])
	by mwinf0302.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2CDB8C000238
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu,  5 Jun 2003 00:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3EDE7609.80306@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:43:21 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice.bellard@free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 0.2 is out
References: <3ED409D1.6040109@free.fr>
	<873city82h.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <3EDBD53F.603@free.fr>
	<874r386p8k.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <3EDBF085.6000308@free.fr>
	<87vfvnjo50.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

With gcc 3.3 and binutils 2.14.90.0.4 it is better. I fixed some bugs 
related to the new jump optimisation I introduced. But there is a big 
problem: no relocations are generated for calls to global functions if 
they are in the same file as the function call. I am trying various 
patches for this.

Fabrice.


Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard <fabrice.bellard@free.fr> writes:
> 
> 
>>Which version of gcc are you using ? Do you use a patched gcc ? Can
>>you give me your spec file and the gcc -v log when you compile
>>op-i386.c ?
> 
> 
> I use gcc 3.3 or 3.4 snapshots usually.
> 
> 
>>I am totally unable to get correct code. In particular, I cannot make
>>gcc 3.2.3 generate R_ALPHA_BRADDR relocations. Currently, to get
>>correct code, I must do the following:
>>
>>--
>>int __op_param1;
>>#define PARAM1 ({ int _r; asm("ldah %0,__op_param1($29) !gprelhigh\n" \
>>                               "lda %0,__op_param1(%0) !gprellow" :
>>                               "=r"(_r) ); _r; })
> 
> 
> Ah yes, this is because gcc 3.2.3 doesn't support visibility("hidden")
> yet. If a symbol has global visibility, gcc cannot know it is accessed
> with the same gp, since it might be provided by libc for example. I
> don't think there's any better way do this with 3.2.3.
> 
> 
>>#define CALL(x) asm volatile ("bsr $26, %0" : : "i" (x))
>>--
>>and use the macro CALL to call a function!
> 
> 
> This seems to works for me even with 3.2.3. What happens if you don't
> use the macro? Maybe your binutils is too old? I have 2.14.90.0.4-0.1.
> 
> Also, concerning the signal handler, siginfo is only filled in with
> 2.4.20 and newer kernels...
> 


-- 
Fabrice.