[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1604181724160.21846@tp.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:09:42 +0100
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...tec.com>
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@...tec.com>
CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>, <kbuild-all@...org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: {standard input}:136: Error: number (0x9000000080000000) larger
than 32 bits
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> I extracted a rather simple test case:
>
> $ echo >> testcase .s << EOF
> .set mips3
> dli $2, 0x9000000080000000
> EOF
> $ mips-linux-as -mips3 -march=r4600 -o testcase.o testcase.s
> testcase.s: Assembler messages:
> testcase.s:2: Error: number (0x9000000080000000) larger than 32 bits
> $ mips-linux-as -mips4 -march=vr5000 -o testcase.o testcase.s
> $
Ah, and if you use `.set mips4' instead, then the symptoms reverse.
The thing is that to match some software's (such as ours) requirements an
ISA override -- as a side effect -- relaxes ABI restrictions on certain
operations. E.g. the DLI macro and its 64-bit immediate argument are not
valid in the o32 ABI. When no actual override happens, such as with
`-march=r4600' which already implies `mips3' for the ISA, the side effect
is lost:
/* The use of .set [arch|cpu]= historically 'fixes' the width of gp and fp
registers based on what is supported by the arch/cpu. */
if (mips_opts.isa != prev_isa)
> I can trigger the error message with vanilla 2.25 and 2.26 but not 2.24.
The regression has come with:
commit 919731affbef19fcad8dddb0a595bb05755cb345
Author: mfortune <matthew.fortune@...tec.com>
Date: Tue May 20 13:28:20 2014 +0100
Add MIPS .module directive
-- previously the side effect was unconditional, even if no ISA change
resulted.
Matthew, this functional change was not mentioned in the review:
<https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-05/msg00179.html> -- what was the
rationale behind it? Do you expect any issues if we revert to old
semantics?
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists