Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-16 Thread Andreas Schwab
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'll pre-approve that change, but I'll also defer to any other >> maintainer who has a solution they prefer. > > How about this one? > > 2006-05-15 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * crtstuff.c (__dso_handle): Set section from > TARGET_LBIG

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-15 Thread Ranjit Mathew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DJ Delorie wrote: > 2006-05-15 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * crtstuff.c (__dso_handle): Set section from > TARGET_LBIGCC_SDATA_SECTION if defined. > * doc/tm.text (TARGET_LIBGCC_SDATA_SECTION): Document. > * config/mip

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-15 Thread DJ Delorie
> > How about this one? > > OK. Thanks; committed.

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
DJ Delorie wrote: >> I'll pre-approve that change, but I'll also defer to any other >> maintainer who has a solution they prefer. > > How about this one? OK. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-15 Thread DJ Delorie
> I'll pre-approve that change, but I'll also defer to any other > maintainer who has a solution they prefer. How about this one? 2006-05-15 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * crtstuff.c (__dso_handle): Set section from TARGET_LBIGCC_SDATA_SECTION if defined. * doc/tm.te

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-14 Thread Mark Mitchell
Richard Sandiford wrote: > DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> How about this? Tested under mipsisa64-elf with no regressions. The >> other two I found by inspection; they're the only other two that have >> .sdata and use -G 0. > > Looks good to me FWIW, although I can't approve it. I won

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-10 Thread Richard Sandiford
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about this? Tested under mipsisa64-elf with no regressions. The > other two I found by inspection; they're the only other two that have > .sdata and use -G 0. Looks good to me FWIW, although I can't approve it. I wonder if... > +#if defined(__mips__

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-10 Thread DJ Delorie
How about this? Tested under mipsisa64-elf with no regressions. The other two I found by inspection; they're the only other two that have .sdata and use -G 0. 2006-05-09 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * crtstuff.c: Ensure that __dso_handle is placed in .sdata for mips, iq2000

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-09 Thread Richard Sandiford
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> For mips-elf builds, crtbegin.o is built with -G 0 ("in case $gp isn't >> used"). This makes __dso_handle be put in .data. However, the >> "prototype" created by cp/decl.c is "void *__dso_data" which causes >> GPrel addressing

Re: mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-08 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For mips-elf builds, crtbegin.o is built with -G 0 ("in case $gp isn't > used"). This makes __dso_handle be put in .data. However, the > "prototype" created by cp/decl.c is "void *__dso_data" which causes > GPrel addressing if your application is built wi

mips: -G0 vs __dso_handle

2006-05-08 Thread DJ Delorie
For mips-elf builds, crtbegin.o is built with -G 0 ("in case $gp isn't used"). This makes __dso_handle be put in .data. However, the "prototype" created by cp/decl.c is "void *__dso_data" which causes GPrel addressing if your application is built without -G 0 (i.e. the default), which causes lin