This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: how close to binutils-2.12 previews
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts at csv dot ica dot uni-stuttgart dot de>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:19:25 +0100 (MET)
- Subject: Re: how close to binutils-2.12 previews
- Organization: Technical University of Gdansk
On 15 Feb 2002, Eric Christopher wrote:
> mips. As Thiemo said the checking for la and dla based on
> register/address size causes (I believe valid) testsuite failures. It
> could warn erroneously as well (I'm thinking of a 64-bit arch with
> -mgp32, as well as, the n32 case or even a 64-bit arch with a 32-bit
> pointer range).
Note that in the terms of BFD it only makes sense to classify an
architecture to be 64-bit or 32-bit in terms of the address width. If
32-bit registers are used to express addresses, the arch is 32-bit. If
64-bit ones, then it's 64-bit. Whatever given code uses for ALU doesn't
matter -- it's hidden in the code and is not interpreted by BFD in any
way.
So none of your examples is actually a 64-bit arch from the BFD point of
view.
> So, let's delay some of this until we can get mips64 working.
OK, as I've already stated.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +