https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108315
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov <amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Let me address one point separately: (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #1) > CCing Alan, since he probably knows best how this all works, but yes, > -mcpu-power10 changes the ABI, namely it adds pcrel support which is an ABI > extension, where the function compiled with -mcpu=power10 doesn't use r2 to > access its GOT, but uses pcrel code instead. I think copying over a p10 > compiled asm or obj file to a p9 system and them linking there with a > non-p10 aware compiler/binutils seems to be a user error on my part. Just > because the -mcpu=power10 compiled file doesn't use any p10 instructions > doesn't mean it's safe to use on a pre-p10 system. > > I'll let Alan correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like user error to me. And the user deserves to get a silently mislinked executable that mysteriously fails at runtime [*] because it's the users' job to tag static libraries with minimum required ABI level, not the toolchain's. Yeah. [*] it does not immediately segfault when returning from a localentry 1 function; it just continues with wrong r2, that may very well point to valid memory
