This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Only warn when missing MIPS LO16 are encountered


>>>>> "Thiemo" == Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> writes:

 Thiemo> Hello All, I applied the appended patch, it downgrades
 Thiemo> missing LO16 relocations from an error to a warning. This
 Thiemo> unbreaks builds with existing compilers but still gives gcc
 Thiemo> developers a better chance to find and fix the problematic
 Thiemo> bits in the optimizer.

Warnings are still a problem when you're using the "warnings are
errors" principle, as we and others do.

Does this "missing" LO16 relocation cause any problem?  If not, why
should there be a warning, and for that matter, why should this be
called "problematic bits in the optimizer"?

       paul


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]