This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Fix ldxmov relaxation
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:40:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix ldxmov relaxation
- References: <20030417095846.A12323@lucon.org> <20030417220241.A32298@lucon.org> <20030418120921.GB13717@redhat.com> <20030418081457.A8557@lucon.org>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:14:57AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:09:21AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:02:41PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > BTW, there may be a small ldxmov/ltoff22x ld bug. Shouldn't we relax
> > > ldxmov/ltoff22x after we finish all brl relaxation?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > I have a patch for that.
> >
> > Eh? I don't think the current relax_section interface
> > supports this. It's not a small problem.
> >
>
> Here is my patch.
Do you need a generic flag for this?
Ie. can't just elfNN_ia64_relax_section, if it a) has seen any ldxmov
relocs b) would otherwise return FALSE set an IA-64 internal section
flag and return TRUE?
Jakub