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] |
On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:50 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 02/14/2011 06:33 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:22 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 02/14/2011 04:15 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
I have to wonder if it's worth the effort. The primary problem I see is that this new ABI requires a 64bit kernel since faults through the upper 2G will go through the XTLB miss exception vector.
Yes, that is correct. It is a 64-bit ABI, and like the existing n32 ABI requires a 64-bit kernel.
N32 doesn't require a LP64 kernel, just a 64-bit register aware kernel. Your N32-big does require a LP64 kernel.
But using 'official' kernel sources the only way to get a 64-bit register aware kernel is for it to also be LP64. So effectively, you do in fact need a 64-bit kernel to run n32 userspace code.
Not all the world is Linux. :) NetBSD supports N32 kernels.
My proposed ABI would need trivial kernel changes:
o Fix a couple of places where pointers are sign extended instead of zero extended.
I think you'll find there are more of these than you'd expect.
o Change the stack address and address ranges returned by mmap().
My biggest concern is that many many mips opcodes expect properly sign-extended value for registers. Thusly N32-big will require using daddu/dadd/dsub/dsubu for addresses. So that's yet another departure from N32 which can use addu/add/sub/subu.
The main work would be in the compiler toolchain and runtime libraries.
You'd also need to update gas for la and dla expansion.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |