[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Mips/Linux integration of latest GCC, Binutils & GLibc

To: "Ralf Baechle" <>, "Tim Wilkinson" <>
Subject: Re: Mips/Linux integration of latest GCC, Binutils & GLibc
From: "Jay Carlson" <>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:25:18 -0500
Cc: <>, <>, <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
> > Okay this makes sense.  This then means there's a problem with GLIBC
since it
> > excludes certain files when building a static library but unfortuantely
> > needs them because it uses #ifdef PIC to include bits of code related to
> > shared library workings (essentially it considers PIC to mean SHARED
> > this may not infact be the case - not for MIPS anyway).
> >
> > So what you're saying is pretty much how I have my gcc, binutils and
> > set up - I introduced a -DSHARED to glibc (which I suspect isn't really
> > okay) when building shared libraries so static libraries didn't include
> > the bad code.  I may look for a better solution however.
> Indeed.  The problem is just that Ulrich drepper didn't accept such a
> the last time I sent it to him.
> > I've also made a bunch of elf related changes to mips/linux so that the
> > assembler output from gcc is more like the elf output for the x86/linux
> > targets.  It's interesting to note that mips/linux doesn't even defined
> > linux for CPP (and doesn't do a bunch of other stuff either come to
> > which confused things no end when compiling the linux kernel.

The mips-linux configuration in gcc 2.95.x out of the box is just awful.  It
was obviously never tested against a full rebuild of the system, or in fact
any significant rebuild.

> Go to and get /pub/linux/mips/src/egcs/egcs-1.0.3a-2.diff.gz
> and integrate that with a current egcs.  This is what most people are
> using and is known to work.  It generates assembler output that is known
> to be working with binutils and even halfway human-readable as far as this
> can be said from compiler output.  You'll also find binutils test patches
> for more current releases there.

As Ralf sez, because MIPS PIC and non-PIC code can't intercall, generation
of non-PIC code for use in static libraries is incorrect, unless EVERYTHING
you're linking is non-PIC.   Most people feel that giving up shared
libraries is too high a price for the potential gain in code density and
efficiency from non-PIC/non-ABI builds.  Me, I still have lingering doubts,
but I don't have working code yet, so...

I did a port/translation/reinterpretation of Ralf's configuration in
egcs-1.0.3a-2 for gcc 2.95.1.  My take on this, as expressed in , is
that gcc should always build as PIC, unless some Makefile etc really does
want to ask for the non-PIC lossage.

The primary flag for controlling this in my config
is -mabicalls/-mno-abicalls.  -mabicalls is the default (as it was in Ralf's
config).  -D__PIC__ and -D__pic__ are asserted unless -mno-abicalls is set
(which also implies -fno-pic).   glibc is happy with this.  So is the
kernel.  And random makefiles, libtool, autoconf, etc, can happily build
with their bogus -fpic or -fPIC options from other platforms and not break

Originally I thought that it would not be necessary to ever pass -KPIC to
the assembler; at the top of each PIC/abicalls assembly file GCC produces,
it sticks in a ".abicalls" directive which has the same effect as the -KPIC
option.  That worked just great until I encountered .S files that didn't
have that directive and didn't know any better, so I had to put the -KPIC
back in :-(


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