On Sun, 2015-10-04 at 22:16 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> This is FDPIC-specific. Because there is fundamentally no way for a
> function to find its own GOT (it has one GOT for each process using
> the code containing the function), its GOT address has to be a
> (hidden) argument to the function whic
Oleg Endo wrote:
>> So apparently the strange behavior I observed is intended. Presumably
>> there is some mechanism to ensure that these functions are always
>> static-linked? But I don't see it. The libgcc spec I see is:
>>
>> *libgcc:
>> %{static|static-libgcc:-lgcc
>> -lgcc_eh}%{!static:%{!st
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 02:10:42PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 18:34 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >
> > > I found and fixed the problem, but I have a new concern: calls to the
> > > new shift instructions are using the following address forms:
> > >
> > > -mno-fdpic -fPIC:
>
On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 18:34 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > I found and fixed the problem, but I have a new concern: calls to the
> > new shift instructions are using the following address forms:
> >
> > -mno-fdpic -fPIC:
> > .long __ashlsi3_r0@GOTOFF
> >
> > -mfdpic:
> > .long __a
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:18:32AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > +#ifdef __FDPIC__
> > > +#define udiv_qrnnd(q, r, n1, n0, d) \
> > > + do {
> > > \
> > > +extern UWtype __udiv_qrnnd_16 (UWtype, UWtype)
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:30:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target
> > setup revealed some additional issues I need to address. I'm getting
> > ICE in the code that gene
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:30:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target
> setup revealed some additional issues I need to address. I'm getting
> ICE in the code that generates the libgcc bitshift calls, which
> weren't used on J2. This is
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 05:17:53PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 00:50 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > I have -mfdpic in the self-specs when FDPIC_DEFAULT is defined, so I
> > think only the positive form is needed.
>
> Having positive and negative forms for options makes sense
On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 00:50 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> I have -mfdpic in the self-specs when FDPIC_DEFAULT is defined, so I
> think only the positive form is needed.
Having positive and negative forms for options makes sense. It usually
costs nothing because anyway the compiler internally supp
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:57:56AM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Rich Felker wrote:
> > I worked around it and opened an issue for it:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67812
> >
> > But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target
> > setup revealed some addi
Rich Felker wrote:
> I worked around it and opened an issue for it:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67812
>
> But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target
> setup revealed some additional issues I need to address. I'm getting
> ICE in the code that genera
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 11:18 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> Thanks! This is very helpful. gcc style has changed a lot since the
> old patch was submitted so I think it makes sense to update it to
> match current practices rather than just making it work. I'll try to
> focus on any functional problems
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:51:03PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 21:30 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > If you have any other general comments on the patch in the mean time
> > I'd be happy to hear them.
>
> Below are some comments. Might be a bit unstructured, I was hopping
> t
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 21:30 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> If you have any other general comments on the patch in the mean time
> I'd be happy to hear them.
Below are some comments. Might be a bit unstructured, I was hopping
through the patch file. Sorry about that.
> +function_symbol (rtx target
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:39:10PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 07:36:27AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 07:36:27AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html
> >
> > I'm submitting it at this point for ini
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html
>
> I'm submitting it at this point for initial review, not to be applied
> right away; I would not be surprised i
This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html
I'm submitting it at this point for initial review, not to be applied
right away; I would not be surprised if some changes are needed. It
applies on top of gcc 5.2.0 with the
18 matches
Mail list logo
