Re: how close to binutils-2.12 previews

[Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts at csv dot ica dot uni-stuttgart dot de>]

Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
[snip]
> binutils-2.11.93-20020129-ulfc-mips-la.patch
> diff -up --recursive --new-file binutils.macro/gas/config/tc-mips.c binutils/gas/config/tc-mips.c
> --- binutils.macro/gas/config/tc-mips.c	Thu Jan 17 04:25:24 2002
> +++ binutils/gas/config/tc-mips.c	Wed Jan 30 19:43:22 2002
> @@ -4569,6 +4569,14 @@ macro (ip)
>        /* Load the address of a symbol into a register.  If breg is not
>  	 zero, we then add a base register to it.  */
>  
> +      if (dbl != HAVE_64BIT_ADDRESSES)
> +	{
> +	  if (dbl)
> +	    as_warn (_("dla instruction used in 32-bit mode"));
> +	  else
> +	    as_warn (_("la instruction used in 64-bit mode"));
> +	}

It's valid to use 64bit opcodes in 32bit object format. Warnings
would be misleading in this case. I had this code in my private
tree for a while but didn't contribute it due to testsuite failures
caused by it.

	if (dbl && HAVE_32BIT_GPRS)
	  as_warn (_("dla used to load 32-bit register"));

	if (! dbl && HAVE_64BIT_ADDRESSES)
	  as_warn (_("la used to load 64-bit address"));

[snip]
>  #ifdef BFD64
>    mips64*el-*-linux*)
> -    targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_tradlittlemips_vec
> -    targ_selvecs="bfd_elf32_tradbigmips_vec bfd_elf64_tradlittlemips_vec bfd_elf64_tradbigmips_vec"
> +    targ_defvec=bfd_elf64_tradlittlemips_vec
> +    targ_selvecs="bfd_elf64_tradbigmips_vec bfd_elf32_tradlittlemips_vec bfd_elf32_tradbigmips_vec"
>      ;;
>    mips64*-*-linux*)
> -    targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_tradbigmips_vec
> -    targ_selvecs="bfd_elf32_tradlittlemips_vec bfd_elf64_tradbigmips_vec bfd_elf64_tradlittlemips_vec"
> +    targ_defvec=bfd_elf64_tradbigmips_vec
> +    targ_selvecs="bfd_elf64_tradlittlemips_vec bfd_elf32_tradbigmips_vec bfd_elf32_tradlittlemips_vec"
>      ;;
>  #endif

Default for mips64 is to generate 32bit code, so targ_defvec
shouldn't be changed like this.


Thiemo