-Original Message-
From: Moore, Catherine [mailto:catherine_mo...@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:36 PM
To: Petar Jovanovic
Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki; Matthew Fortune; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
>
> Hi Petar,
>
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
> This issue will not trigger a linker error (I believe it treats the
> symbol referred by the relocation as a local symbol). This is a follow
> up to GLIBC BZ #17601, the problem is seen only at runtime. So, I think
> this brings back the need to run th
_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
>
> Resending the previous message in a plain text format.
>
> > Original Message ----
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
> > Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:38 PM CEST
> > From: &
Resending the previous message in a plain text format.
> Original Message
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:38 PM CEST
> From: "Moore, Catherine"
> To: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: Petar Jovanovic
> Cc: Moore, Catherine; 'Matthew Fortune'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATI
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
> > There isn't any need to execute a large testcase. Instead, try adding a
> short version of your test to the directory gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips.
> > There are examples of other tests there they check for specific assembler
> sequences by using s
-Original Message-
From: Moore, Catherine [mailto:catherine_mo...@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:37 AM
To: Petar Jovanovic; 'Matthew Fortune'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; 'Maciej W.
Rozycki'
Cc: Moore, Catherine
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_S
> -Original Message-
> From: Petar Jovanovic [mailto:petar.jovano...@rt-rk.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Moore, Catherine [mailto:cathe
-Original Message-
From: Moore, Catherine [mailto:catherine_mo...@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 4:13 PM
To: Matthew Fortune; Petar Jovanovic; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; 'Maciej W.
Rozycki'
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
> Peta
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Mike Stump wrote:
> Personally, the call form of bal in my book should be called call, and
> the non-call form of it should be called bal, but, I realize it is
> likely to late to do much about now. If one went down this path, then
> even changing it away from bal is wrong.
On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> Mike Stump writes:
>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:23 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki
>> wrote:
>>> This consideration made me realise I've had a patch outstanding for
>>> some
>>> 10 years to convert all the `BAL x' instructions there to `BLTZAL $0,
>> x'.
>>>
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Mike Stump wrote:
> > This consideration made me realise I've had a patch outstanding for some
> > 10 years to convert all the `BAL x' instructions there to `BLTZAL $0, x'.
> > This has always been a good idea in case implementations recognised the
> > special case and avoi
Mike Stump writes:
> On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:23 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki
> wrote:
> > This consideration made me realise I've had a patch outstanding for
> > some
> > 10 years to convert all the `BAL x' instructions there to `BLTZAL $0,
> x'.
> > This has always been a good idea in case implementations
On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:23 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> This consideration made me realise I've had a patch outstanding for some
> 10 years to convert all the `BAL x' instructions there to `BLTZAL $0, x'.
> This has always been a good idea in case implementations recognised the
> special case a
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Fortune [mailto:matthew.fort...@imgtec.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 3:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro
> >
> I've put your patch inline below and switched to plain text.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > Native systems have for such ABI dependencies, including
> > stuff to set up $gp. Perhaps we could reuse these bits, the licence I
> > think allows us to.
>
> That's a good idea. Perhaps I should take that on as part of some cleanup
> of the MIPS
Maciej W. Rozycki writes:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:
>
> > I'm OK with this change but I'd like Catherine to comment before
> committing.
> > It seems a shame to duplicate the block of code but it is probably just
> as
> > ugly to define a macro for the la/dla instruction.
>
>
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> I'm OK with this change but I'd like Catherine to comment before committing.
> It seems a shame to duplicate the block of code but it is probably just as
> ugly to define a macro for the la/dla instruction.
Native systems have for such ABI dependenci
Hi Petar,
I've put your patch inline below and switched to plain text. I suspect
your post was bounced by gcc-patches.
I'm OK with this change but I'd like Catherine to comment before committing.
It seems a shame to duplicate the block of code but it is probably just as
ugly to define a macro for
19 matches
Mail list logo
