Re: bal instruction in gcc 3.x

[Kishore K <hellokishore@gmail.com>]

On 7/20/05, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@linux-mips.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Pete Popov wrote:
> 
> > Try the attached patch instead.
> 
>  Apart from other changes why not simply s/bal/jal/?  Your proposed code
> is bad if ever to be built to a 64-bit object.
> 
In the case of s/bal/jal, I get the warning "No .cprestore pseudo-op
used in PIC code".
Is it safe to ignore this warning ?

On the other hand, if I replace 

bal jump_to_label   

by 

la t9, jump_to_label
jalr t9

I don't see any warning. What could be the reason ?

Can you suggest, what should be done to make the code safe for
building on 64 bit processor.

--kishore