[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bal instruction in gcc 3.x

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: bal instruction in gcc 3.x
From: Kishore K <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:49:40 +0530
Cc: Pete Popov <>, Ralf Baechle <>, "" <>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kJezhNdbiNJTXfvF6AvuJMv/yd2rJfzheZLKMMkiclJ/5oEgBzjTIxrc085L7cLkRCsCMr0XchL4LHkiiY48bKXHZ60W6Wltm/JoiTp/DC+olufnnWP0T5pKwEVrAmpPefV3F4WbjqFom87nB4z7JciOHtDA5WN71PsXHAuDZ4A=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <1121802786.7285.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <>
Reply-to: Kishore K <>
On 7/20/05, Maciej W. Rozycki <> 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   


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.


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