This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS/GAS: Fix NewABI reloc handling with the LD/SD macro
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:32:01 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS/GAS: Fix NewABI reloc handling with the LD/SD macro
- References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010241201020.15889@eddie.linux-mips.org> <87wrp6m03j.fsf@firetop.home> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010311914200.25426@eddie.linux-mips.org>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > Tested with the usual set of targets: mips-linux, mips64-linux,
>> > mipstx39-elf, mipsisa64-elf and mips-ecoff targets and their respective
>> > little-endian counterparts. At least a smoke test for the regression
>> > caused here would be a good idea; I'll think of something.
>>
>> Yeah, I think the patch does need a testcase. Like you say, it doesn't
>> have to be anything fancy.
>
> Given the current state of affairs I'll post the testcase I have in mind
> separately later on. Note that the LD failures spotted by Alan are
> indirect only -- we seem to be lacking a direct test, so one will be good
> to have IMO.
It cuts both ways. I see the binutils testsuite as effectively a unit,
rather than as a collection of separate component testsuites (gas/, ld/,
binutils/). So while you could say that assembler-only relocation tests
are more "direct" than ld tests, you could also say that they're less
complete than the assembler+linker tests in ld/.
> gas/
> * config/tc-mips.c (macro)[M_LD_OB, M_SD_OB]: Use the offset
> reloc supplied.
> (mips_ip)['o']: Initialise offset_reloc.
OK.
Richard