https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abb7e70024df110eaca30d227b584bd90bd3e845
commit r17-1529-gabb7e70024df110eaca30d227b584bd90bd3e845 Author: Gerald Pfeifer <[email protected]> Date: Sat Jun 13 12:21:45 2026 +0200 install: Use AE spelling for "behavior" gcc: * doc/install.texi (Configuration): Use AE spelling for "behavior". Diff: --- gcc/doc/install.texi | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi index 406862b31958..5ce11ac3c0cb 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/install.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi @@ -1886,12 +1886,12 @@ On MIPS targets, make @option{-mlxc1-sxc1} the default when no On MIPS targets, make @option{-mno-lxc1-sxc1} the default when no @option{-mlxc1-sxc1} option is passed. The indexed load/store instructions are not directly a problem but can lead to unexpected -behaviour when deployed in an application intended for a 32-bit address +behavior when deployed in an application intended for a 32-bit address space but run on a 64-bit processor. The issue is seen because all known MIPS 64-bit Linux kernels execute o32 and n32 applications -with 64-bit addressing enabled which affects the overflow behaviour +with 64-bit addressing enabled which affects the overflow behavior of the indexed addressing mode. GCC will assume that ordinary -32-bit arithmetic overflow behaviour is the same whether performed +32-bit arithmetic overflow behavior is the same whether performed as an @code{addu} instruction or as part of the address calculation in @code{lwxc1} type instructions. This assumption holds true in a pure 32-bit environment and can hold true in a 64-bit environment if
