.section problems in entry.S
I just investigated assembler warnings coming from arch/mips/kernel/entry.S (checked out as of 12/07 00:00 UTC), and noticed the following. After expanding macros, you get something like:
.text .section ".text.init" (from __INIT) .data (from PANIC) .previous (from PANIC) --> section is now .text.init .previous (from __FINIT) --> section is now .data, not .text as intended.
Perhaps .pushsection and .popsection should be used in some or all macros like this?
Or am I smoking crack?
Kip
Quoted 15 lines · Kip Walker
I just investigated assembler warnings coming from
arch/mips/kernel/entry.S(checked out as of 12/07 00:00 UTC), and noticed the following. After expanding macros, you get something like:.text .section ".text.init" (from __INIT) .data (from PANIC) .previous (from PANIC) --> section is now .text.init .previous (from __FINIT) --> section is now .data, not .text as intended.
Quoted 4 lines
Perhaps .pushsection and .popsection should be used in some or all macros like this?
Or am I smoking crack?
Certainly not. The problem is known and so far I've just hacked around it more or less elegant. But it's a trap and so I think we've got good reasons to force people to upgrade to a newer assembler than the current minimal version. The question is which - I don't like frequent tool upgrades.
Ralf
Quoted 5 lines · Ralf Baechle
Certainly not. The problem is known and so far I've just hacked around it more or less elegant. But it's a trap and so I think we've got good reasons to force people to upgrade to a newer assembler than the current minimal version. The question is which - I don't like frequent tool upgrades.
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.
Signature · 3 lines
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +
Quoted 10 lines · Maciej W. Rozycki
Quoted 5 lines
Certainly not. The problem is known and so far I've just hacked around it more or less elegant. But it's a trap and so I think we've got good reasons to force people to upgrade to a newer assembler than the current minimal version. The question is which - I don't like frequent tool upgrades.
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.
What is the schedule for 2.12?
Ralf
Ralf Baechle wrote:
[snip]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.What is the schedule for 2.12?
AFAIK it is to be done in parallel to the GCC schedule:
2001-12-15 Functionality freeze. 2002-02-15 Branch for gcc 3.1 and binutils 2.12. 2002-04-15 Release.
Thiemo
Quoted 7 lines · Thiemo Seufer
Ralf Baechle wrote:
[snip]Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
What is the schedule for 2.12?
AFAIK it is to be done in parallel to the GCC schedule:
2001-12-15 Functionality freeze. 2002-02-15 Branch for gcc 3.1 and binutils 2.12. 2002-04-15 Release.
Where did you get this information from?
Signature · 2 lines
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Quoted 8 lines · Daniel Jacobowitz
Quoted 7 lines · Thiemo Seufer
Ralf Baechle wrote:
[snip]Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
What is the schedule for 2.12?
AFAIK it is to be done in parallel to the GCC schedule:
2001-12-15 Functionality freeze. 2002-02-15 Branch for gcc 3.1 and binutils 2.12. 2002-04-15 Release.Where did you get this information from?
The schedule for GCC can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html . For the last binutils release there was some connection to the GCC schedule. I _assume_ the next release will be done in a similiar way due to the dependencies between both projects.
Thiemo
Quoted 16 lines · Thiemo Seufer
Quoted 15 lines · Daniel Jacobowitz
Quoted 13 lines · Thiemo Seufer
Ralf Baechle wrote:
[snip]Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.What is the schedule for 2.12?
AFAIK it is to be done in parallel to the GCC schedule:
2001-12-15 Functionality freeze. 2002-02-15 Branch for gcc 3.1 and binutils 2.12. 2002-04-15 Release.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Where did you get this information from?
The schedule for GCC can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html . For the last binutils release there was some connection to the GCC schedule. I _assume_ the next release will be done in a similiar way due to the dependencies between both projects.
Actually, as far as I know there's never been a coupling between GCC and binutils releases. I'm going to try to get 2.12 out before GCC 3.1, though.
Signature · 2 lines
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Quoted 8 lines · Ralf Baechle
Quoted 6 lines · Maciej W. Rozycki
Quoted 5 lines
Certainly not. The problem is known and so far I've just hacked around it more or less elegant. But it's a trap and so I think we've got good reasons to force people to upgrade to a newer assembler than the current minimal version. The question is which - I don't like frequent tool upgrades.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.What is the schedule for 2.12?
There isn't one yet; I'm hoping within three months. I'm going to try to roll the ball a little this week.
Signature · 2 lines
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Quoted 21 lines · Daniel Jacobowitz
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:28:16 -0500
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[email protected]>
To: Ralf Baechle <[email protected]>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[email protected]>,
Kip Walker <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: .section problems inentry.SQuoted 13 lines · Ralf Baechle
Quoted 10 lines · Maciej W. Rozycki
Quoted 5 lines
Certainly not. The problem is known and so far I've just hacked around it more or less elegant. But it's a trap and so I think we've got good reasons to force people to upgrade to a newer assembler than the current minimal version. The question is which - I don't like frequent tool upgrades.
There are no working released binutils for a modern MIPS/Linux system,
AFAIK. However, version 2.11.92 from the CVS seems to work reasonably well now, so chances are the next release will do as well. Maybe 2.12 will be a good candidate then, once it is released and tested a bit.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
What is the schedule for 2.12?
There isn't one yet; I'm hoping within three months. I'm going to try to roll the ball a little this week.
Longer than I'd like to see. Anybody got a sufficiently hacked version of ~ 2.11?
Ralf
Quoted 2 lines · Ralf Baechle
Longer than I'd like to see. Anybody got a sufficiently hacked version of ~ 2.11?
Once I get a patch negotiated with Eric to make option parsing compatible with how we use it now, you'll be able to use 2.12 snapshots...
Signature · 2 lines
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Quoted 2 lines · Ralf Baechle
Longer than I'd like to see. Anybody got a sufficiently hacked version of ~ 2.11?
My 2.11.2 appears rock-solid with one exception -- its as mishandles la
when used in a 32-bit source after a 64-bit ISA has been set (with e.g. "set .mips3"). I just haven't bothered myself to fix it and switched to 2.11.92 instead. I have no idea if it works for ELF64, either.
Signature · 3 lines
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: [email protected], PGP key available +