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
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
Dave Korn wrote on 2010/10/27 13:59:00:
>
> On 27/10/2010 07:47, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alan Modra 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 minu
On 27/10/2010 07:47, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Alan Modra 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?
Alan Modra 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 lac
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,
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.
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/14 15:54:32:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
> >
> > Alan Modra 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 l
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
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 registe
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
>
> Alan Modra 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 loa
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/09 18:32:40:
>
> Michael Meissner 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
Alan Modra 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 -mcmodel=medium you
Alan Modra 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 -mcmodel=medium you
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 lo
Alan Modra 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 in the fun
Michael Meissner 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 doesn't need
A first c
Michael Meissner 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 doesn't need
Yes, but
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 al
Michael Meissner 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 wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> > >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> > >>> While doing relocation work on u-
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 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 becaus
Richard Henderson 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 because
> th
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 wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> >>> While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
> >>> to be access
On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Joakim Tjernlund 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 t
Joakim Tjernlund 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 architecture.
Also, since every ar
Gabriel Paubert wrote on 2010/10/06 10:15:26:
>
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Richard Henderson wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
> > >
> > > On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> > > >> Joak
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
> >
> > On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> > >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> > >>> While doing relocation work on
Alan Modra 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 in the fun
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 ol
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 re-com
Richard Henderson 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 making su
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 wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
>
> On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
> >> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> >>> While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
> >>> to be accessible through %pc
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
>> Joakim Tjernlund 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
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund 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 g
Joakim Tjernlund 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 supported on processors which
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
