From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A42FDDDFE for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:40:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1EFeoRD003260 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:40:50 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1EFenRp519136 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:40:49 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1EFejJC009179 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:40:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/16] Early serial debug support for PPC44x From: Josh Boyer To: Alan Modra In-Reply-To: <20070214023846.GC8541@bubble.grove.modra.org> References: <20070213061024.DA1ABDDD0C@ozlabs.org> <1171379087.4003.40.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070214001622.GB11491@localhost.localdomain> <20070214010235.GB19430@crusty.rchland.ibm.com> <20070214010044.GG11491@localhost.localdomain> <20070214020012.GB8541@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20070214020251.GI11491@localhost.localdomain> <20070214023846.GC8541@bubble.grove.modra.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:41:48 -0600 Message-Id: <1171467708.4003.92.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, dwg@au1.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 13:08 +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > > > > > I would guess that this isn't a matter of how old the assembler is, > > > but how the assembler was built. If built on a 32-bit host with no > > > 64-bit targets supported, then most internal assembler variables > > > are 32-bit and 64-bit constants are not handled very well. > > > > > > You probably should avoid 64-bit expressions on a 32-bit target. > > > > Well, yes, but how. > > No idea, but I haven't even looked at the code in question. I'm just > pointing out the toolchain limitation. It sounds like what you've > done requires that people build their binutils with > --enable-64-bit-bfd or choose support for an extra 64-bit target, > eg. --enable-targets=powerpc64-linux Yes, that seems to be the case. I built a powerpc64 cross toolchain this morning and recompiled the kernel. It worked just fine. But I also think we want to avoid requiring that in peoples toolchains. I'll see if we can't accomplish what we're trying to do some other way without being too ugly. josh