On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 10:59 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > I don't think mindlessly caring for vendor forks is always correct. In > fact I find the name "movable" too generic, and something like > "force_got_access" could be better.
The problem is "what will this behave *if* we later add some code model without GOT". If it's named "movable" we generate a full 4-instruction absolute (or PC-relative) address loading sequence if GOT is disabled. If it's named "force_got_access" we report an error and reject the code if GOT is disabled. > I don't currently have time to test this, unfortunately, due to day job. > Might be able to give it a whirl one or two week later though... Unfortunately, I can't access my dev system via SSH too because while I'm remote, a sudden power surge happened and I forgot to configure an automatically power-on. I'm kind of rushy because I want to make it into 12.2, leaving 12.1 the only exception cannot build Linux >= 6.0. But maybe it just can't be backported anyway. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
