[Top] [All Lists]

Re: recent binutils and mips64-linux

To: Thiemo Seufer <>
Subject: Re: recent binutils and mips64-linux
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:14:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: Eric Christopher <>, Atsushi Nemoto <>, Daniel Jacobowitz <>,,
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
Original-recipient: rfc822;
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

> >  What if the final link leads to segments being mapped outside the 32-bit
> > address range?  We won't know about it when assembling.
> Then the resulting code is broken. It's the programmers responsibility
> to care about it. IMHO that's not a problem, this feature is only

 Sure, but some kind of aid, perhaps conditional, from tools would be
good.  The linker is already unconditionally picky about certain
properties of object files, e.g. it won't link a PIC and a PDC object
together, even if there are no relocations in them.  One could say it's a
programmer's responsibility, too. 

> useful for kernels, and the tricks currently done there are worse.

 No doubt.

> >  If the idea were to be implemented, there should be a flag added to the
> > header of object files that would forbid the linker to map addresses
> > outside the 32-bit range.
> Please don't add any header flag. An additional (.note?) section would
> be nice, but is not a priority for me.

 Well, I might not really care of something I'm not going to use, but we
should try to assure some level of engineering quality whenever possible.
A flag vs a special section is alike to me.

+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail:, PGP key available        +

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