linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems generating shared library for MIPS using binutils-2.13...

To: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Problems generating shared library for MIPS using binutils-2.13...
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:15:00 -0800
Cc: "Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@realitydiluted.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <wvnvg3ct57b.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com>; from rsandifo@redhat.com on Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:19:04PM +0000
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1021025185639.1121A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <3DC68907.30708@realitydiluted.com> <wvnvg3ct57b.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:19:04PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@realitydiluted.com> writes:
> > In the '_bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing' function in 'bfd/elfxx-mips.c'
> > If I print out the EF_MIPS_ARCH flags for the input BFD descriptor. It
> > is properly set to 'MIPS2', but when the case statement in
> > '_bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing' is traversed, it
> > uses the R3000/default case which means that the target CPU architecture
> > didn't get put into the BFD descriptor.
> 
> Is it related to this?
> 
>     <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00248.html>
> 
> (In the message body, I accidentally copied the code after
> the patch rather than before.  Sorry about that.)
> 
> Anyway, that patch won't solve your problem, but the issue
> seems to be the same: _bfd_mips_elf_merge_private_bfd_data()
> merges the EF_MIPS_ARCH and EF_MIPS_MACH bits, but
> _bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing() overwrites them
> based on the BFD mach.
> 
> Personally, I think _bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing()
> is doing the right thing.  Surely we ought to be able to
> set EF_MIPS_ARCH and EF_MIPS_MACH based on the value of
> bfd_get_mach?
> 
> I wonder whether _bfd_mips_elf_merge_private_bfd_data() should
> be checking for compatibility based on the BFD machs rather
> than the header flags.  It seems a bit odd that we check the
> ISA level and "machine" separately.
> 
> In other words, replace:
> 
>   /* Compare the ISA's.  */
>   if ((new_flags & (EF_MIPS_ARCH | EF_MIPS_MACH))
>       != (old_flags & (EF_MIPS_ARCH | EF_MIPS_MACH)))
>     {
>       ...
>     }
> 
> with code that checks bfd_get_mach (ibfd) against bfd_get_mach (obfd).
> If ibfd's architecture is an extension of obfd's, copy it to obfd.

The FSF binutils has never been right. I have fixed it in my Linux
binutils. See my followups on this thread.


H.J.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>