This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFA] Fix gold's understanding of ARM v4T/v5T interworking
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew dot gretton-dann at arm dot com>
- Cc: "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "gingold\ at adacore dot com" <gingold at adacore dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:30:07 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix gold's understanding of ARM v4T/v5T interworking
- References: <4E80908B.4080309@arm.com> <mcr62j2l4oy.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> <4EBBB519.7050508@arm.com>
Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com> writes:
> Ian, Tristan,
>
> On 02/11/11 19:11, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Matthew Gretton-Dann<matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2011-09-20 Matthew Gretton-Dann<matthew.gretton-dann@arm.com>
>>>
>>> * arm.cc (Target_arm::Target_arm): Remove initialisation of
>>> may_use_blx_
>>> (Target_arm::may_use_blx): Remove method.
>>> (Target_arm::set_may_use_blx): Likewise.
>>> (Target_arm::may_use_v4t_interworking): New method.
>>> (Target_arm::may_use_v5t_interworking): Likewise.
>>> (Target_arm::may_use_blx_): Remove member variable.
>>> (Arm_relocate_functions::arm_branch_common): Check for v5T
>>> interworking.
>>> (Arm_relocate_functions::thumb_branch_common): Likewise.
>>> (Reloc_stub::stub_type_for_reloc): Likewise.
>>> (Target_arm::do_finalize_sections): Correct interworking checks.
>>> * testsuite/Makefile.am: Add new tests.
>>> * testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_arm_arm.s: New test.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_arm_arm.sh: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_arm_thumb.s: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_arm_thumb.sh: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_thumb_arm.s: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_thumb_arm.sh: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_thumb_thumb.s: Likewise.
>>> * testsuite/arm_farcall_thumb_thumb.sh: Likewise.
>>
>> Committed.
>>
>> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Are you happy for this patch to be backported to the 2.22 branch?
It's fine with me.
Ian