Re: MIPS patch to avoid lazy binding in la macros

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>]

On 24 Feb 2003, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >  So what does exactly the branch do to select between GOT and CALL
> > relocations?
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm talking about the gcc mips-3_4-rewrite-branch here.
> It has two modes: one which uses assembler macros (as current gcc does)
> and one that uses explicit %reloc() operators.  When using assembler
> macros, it gets lazy binding by using "jal foo".

 So what's the problem in the first place?

> >  What version of gcc?
> 
> mips-3_4-rewrite-branch, in the "assembler macro" mode.

 Then either don't use it or live with its shortcomings.

> >  Any "la $25,foo" actually as gcc used not to use the register for
> > anything else when emitting SVR4 PIC code.
> 
> Are you sure?  What stopped gcc from using $25 for anything else?
> Was it declared to be a fixed register?

 I haven't seen it elsewhere in generated code.  But I can't find it being
declared a fixed register, either (2.95).  It might have been pure luck
and I may be wrong, then.

> CVS gas already has support for explicit relocations, see:
> 
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-01/msg00449.html
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-02/msg00044.html

 I must have missed them...  Too bad they are not unified diffs -- I have
hard time reading context diffs bigger than a few lines. 

 BTW, why the naming of "%got" vs "%call16" is inconsistent?  I fixed it
in my code -- you could do that, too.

  Maciej

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl, PGP key available        +