Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 13:59:00:
On 27/10/2010 07:47, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 04:01:50:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything
On 08/11/2010 13:44, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
One ping and a few days later and nothing. Very frustrating. I don't
believe all PPC devs are so busy that none has the time to look
at a simple one liner. What is up?
There's only the one of him. He probably is that busy. He's a very nice
latOn Mon, 2010-11-08 at 21:13 +, Dave Korn wrote:
On 08/11/2010 13:44, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
One ping and a few days later and nothing. Very frustrating. I don't
believe all PPC devs are so busy that none has the time to look
at a simple one liner. What is up?
There's only the
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 04:01:50:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran into the
On 27/10/2010 07:47, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 04:01:50:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/14 15:54:32:
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran into the lack-of-manpower problem. Sorry! And I
can't even help, I'm not a ppc maintainer. But you definitely didn't do
anything wrong.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran into the lack-of-manpower problem. Sorry! And I
can't even help, I'm not
Michael Meissner wrote:
Note, the 64-bit ABI requires that r2 have the current function's GOT in it
when the function is called, while the 32-bit ABI uses r2 as a small data
pointer (and possibly r13 as a second small data pointer).
If the 32-bit ABI is the SYSV-ABI, then you got the register
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:17:51PM +0200, Gunther Nikl wrote:
Michael Meissner wrote:
Note, the 64-bit ABI requires that r2 have the current function's GOT in it
when the function is called, while the 32-bit ABI uses r2 as a small data
pointer (and possibly r13 as a second small data
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC to load the address where the data is.
No, with ppc64
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/09 18:32:40:
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07
20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would
probably be enough.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC to load the address where the data is.
No, with ppc64 -mcmodel=medium you use the GOT/TOC pointer plus an
offset to address
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC to load the address where the data is.
No, with ppc64
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:19:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would probably be
enough.
Well as they say, contributions are welcome. Note, 32-bit mode
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:56:55AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:13:22:
On 10/05/2010 02:40 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?)
Because PIC code can be called from non-PIC code and
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 15:00:25:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:56:55AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would probably be
enough.
Well as they say, contributions are welcome. Note, 32-bit mode doesn't need
this when compiling for the main program, since it does addis/addi
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would probably be
enough.
Well as they say, contributions are welcome. Note, 32-bit mode
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:19:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
Gabriel Paubert paub...@iram.es wrote on 2010/10/06 10:15:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
I really wish mrelocatable is added to all archs. The normal ELF relocs
are too big to fit well in u-boot.
Every architecture is different and requires a thoughtful approach to
determine the best way to handle these issues for that
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
I really wish mrelocatable is added to all archs. The normal ELF relocs
are too big to fit well in u-boot.
Every architecture is different and requires a thoughtful approach to
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
or through GOT. Has this feature ever been considered by gcc?
Jocke
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
or through GOT. Has this feature ever been considered by gcc?
The feature can only be
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
or through GOT. Has
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather
On 10/05/2010 01:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
I don't do x86 or alpha so let me ask: If you run the code on an address
!= link address, will it do the right thing?
Yes of course. It wouldn't be -fpic code otherwise.
I tested the #pragma/no #pragma on PPC and the resulting code
was the
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 23:12:19:
On 10/05/2010 01:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
I don't do x86 or alpha so let me ask: If you run the code on an address
!= link address, will it do the right thing?
Yes of course. It wouldn't be -fpic code otherwise.
Just
On 10/05/2010 02:40 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?)
Because PIC code can be called from non-PIC code and because
the non-PIC code does not load the GOT address.
Avoiding
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?)
The ppc32 ABI is old,
35 matches
Mail list logo
