This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Only warn when missing MIPS LO16 are encountered
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:53:56PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Paul Koning wrote:
> > >>>>> "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?
>
> It is a long-standing violation of the MIPS O32 ABI rules. It causes
> unexpected cornercases for linker implementations (as seen here again)
> but the resulting binaries run ok.
>
> > If not, why
> > should there be a warning, and for that matter, why should this be
> > called "problematic bits in the optimizer"?
>
> The optimizer should eliminate the whole HI/LO relocation pair.
> Currently it doesn't do that in all cases.
Can gas turn instruction with HI relocation without matching LO
relocation into no-op?
H.J.