On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:27:12AM +0100, Julius Baxter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Kristiansson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:58:01PM +0300, Stefan Kristiansson wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 06:33:53AM +0100, Julius Baxter wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/arch/openrisc/cpu/cpu.c b/arch/openrisc/cpu/cpu.c
> >> > index 25cd624..fa43bf5 100644
> >> > --- a/arch/openrisc/cpu/cpu.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/openrisc/cpu/cpu.c
> >> > @@ -151,7 +151,9 @@ extern void __reset(void);
> >> >  int do_reset(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
> >> >  {
> >> >     disable_interrupts();
> >> > -   __reset();
> >> > +   __asm__("l.movhi r1,hi(__reset);  \
> >> > +                 l.ori r1,r1,lo(__reset); \
> >> > +                 l.jr r1");
> >>
> >> Isn't this jump generated by the compiler?
> >> I assume we can count on that doing the right thing?
> >>
> >
> > To clarify, the compiler can of course not know where __reset is,
> > but I would have for some reason expected it to emmit a l.jr sequence...
> > Checking is knowing, it does not.
> > I guess the real issue here is that the current toolchain doesn't complain
> > about it.
> >
> > But I still would like to get that __asm__ statement hidden away somewhere,
> > perhaps in a openrisc_jr inline function?
> > And/or a comment above it why we are doing it.
> 
> I'm still a bit confused why we got this  (a link-time failure due to
> the C-compiler emitting a "l.j __reset") and the only way I could fix
> it was by putting in an absolute jump. Maybe some C attribute or
> something could force the jump to be absolute (put in a register and
> then use l.jr)
> 

Googling a bit I find the -mlong-calls/mmno-long-calls option
(which can be turned on and off with #pragma long_calls and
#pragma long_calls_off)

I don't know if our gcc port supports them.

I presume compiling with -mlong-calls will turn all out of
file-scope calls into loadreg->l.jr calls, which perhaps is a bit overboard.
The pragmas are even more undesired, so I'm more and more inclined to
go with what you suggested in the patch.

Stefan
_______________________________________________
OpenRISC mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc

Reply via email to