On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:55:10AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 17:50:17 +1000
>
> > Best would be if we could get those runtime bits linked in the module
> > itself, but I don't know enough about our toolchain to know if th
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 00:55 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 17:50:17 +1000
>
> > Best would be if we could get those runtime bits linked in the module
> > itself, but I don't know enough about our toolchain to know if that's
>
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 17:50:17 +1000
> Best would be if we could get those runtime bits linked in the module
> itself, but I don't know enough about our toolchain to know if that's
> easy (I suppose everything is always possible :-)
The only downs
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 16:38 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Oh, I forgot about how far function calls are done on powerpc.
> Yes, that will suck.
>
> Is there some way to map all of the modules in the low 32-bits and
> thus aovid the trampolines? The powerpc call instruction can cover
> 4GB like on
That is, it would be fairly non-sensical for module code to go through
the trampoline to call those stubs in the kernel (and having to
EXPORT_SYMBOL them).
You can link every module to libgcc separately. Probably it can also
be set up so that some libgcc routines get linked into the kernel,
and
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 09:27:55 +1000
> That is, it would be fairly non-sensical for module code to go through
> the trampoline to call those stubs in the kernel (and having to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL them).
Oh, I forgot about how far function calls are do
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 14:40 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:28:36 -0500
>
> > Sorry, I meant the gcc patch. I'm not sure if this has been committed
> > to FSF head or not.
>
> If that's the case it would be a good idea to suggest a
On May 2, 2008, at 4:40 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:28:36 -0500
Sorry, I meant the gcc patch. I'm not sure if this has been
committed
to FSF head or not.
If that's the case it would be a good idea to suggest a command line
option
From: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:28:36 -0500
> Sorry, I meant the gcc patch. I'm not sure if this has been committed
> to FSF head or not.
If that's the case it would be a good idea to suggest a command line
option to disable the new out-of-line code generation fea
On May 2, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Why can't we link with libgcc, instead?
Do you have or can you generate a ppc64 toolchain with this patch
in it?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Sorry, I meant the gcc patch. I'm not sure if this has been committed
to FSF head or not
gcc -print-libgcc-file-name
It wasn't clear if we used a multilib toolchain if we always get the
proper libgcc since we are building bootwrappers for all kinda of
variants. (e500, 40x, 6xx, etc.).
gcc -mthe-options-to-select-some-target -print-libgcc-file-name
My patch seemed the least pa
Why can't we link with libgcc, instead?
Do you have or can you generate a ppc64 toolchain with this patch in
it?
I'm not sure what you mean.
I build GCC TOT toolchains sort-of daily, and build the kernel
with it (all architectures). I don't build any 4xx config though,
maybe I should.
Seg
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:41:27AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I assume there is a reason we don't link libgcc w/the kernel.
Inertia?
BTW, it looks like ARM, SuperH, PA-Risc, and a few others do link in
libgcc.
-Scott
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linux
On May 2, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd need to link with libgcc to get
the
implemen
On May 2, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:32:12 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 2, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 03:11 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
On Fri, 2 May 2008 08:32:12 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 03:11 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
> >> register
> >> saves/restores based on:
On May 2, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Why can't we link with libgcc, instead?
we possibly could, the problem is knowing the path of libgcc to
link with.
gcc -print-libgcc-file-name
It wasn't clear if we used a multilib toolchain if we always get the
proper libgcc since
Why can't we link with libgcc, instead?
we possibly could, the problem is knowing the path of libgcc to link
with.
gcc -print-libgcc-file-name
This seemed easier to me than the makefile headaches to ensure that
we get that right.
Ah come on, make syntax is fun!
Segher
___
On May 2, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 03:11 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd n
On May 2, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd need to link with libgcc to get
the
implemen
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 03:11 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line register
> saves/restores based on:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
>
> This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd need to link with libgcc to get the
> impl
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd need to link with libgcc to get the
implementation of the register save/restores.
To workaround this iss
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the bootwrapper as we'd need to link with libgcc to get the
implementation of the register save/restores.
To workaround this issue
23 matches
Mail list logo
