This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [patch, binutils] Patch elf/mips.h for -mfp64 support.
- From: Jack Carter <Jack dot Carter at imgtec dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Doug Gilmore <Doug dot Gilmore at imgtec dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:57:28 +0000
- Subject: RE: [patch, binutils] Patch elf/mips.h for -mfp64 support.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <522E6DDF dot 10909 at imgtec dot com> <87sixdf64s dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1309100948050 dot 29360 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <87ppsgmnjn dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1309111352360 dot 29360 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <5238A87D dot 5080006 at imgtec dot com>,<alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1309172352370 dot 4379 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:10 PM
> To: Jack Carter
> Cc: Richard Sandiford; Doug Gilmore; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [patch, binutils] Patch elf/mips.h for -mfp64 support.
> [Usenet cross-posting stripped, no usable NNTP server here, sigh...]
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Jack Carter wrote:
> > Hehe, actually I reckon I have once raised the issue somewhere already
> > and I can surely do it again, though I think it will be wise to think
> > ahead and have an idea what the extension might look like as I'm sure the
> > need for it is bound to happen sooner rather than later.
> Are talking about the PT_NOTE segment and .note section? If so, that is
> described in the System V abi circa '92 and is very simple.
> Yes, we've been using these sections/segments for a while already
> although for a different purpose (see csu/abi-note.S in glibc).
Well do we want to do what SGI did and is documented in the 64-bit ELF Object
File Specification and use the Options section? I would think that the NOTE segment
would be the more generic way to go, but if it is being used for different purposes
maybe we have no choice.
SGI put this information right after the ELF header so it got pulled in with it for
> The use of a note as a replacement for (or an extension of) e_flags for
> the MIPS target has been considered for at least some 10 years now, but so
> far people have only been pinching further bits from e_flags instead. ;)
> I think the MIPS target is the only one to have an issue with running out
> of these flags, other architectures seem to have been more conservative on
> creating new options and hence there has been no general rush towards
> using a note to record target ISA/ABI/etc. options.