.section problems in entry.S

.section problems in entry.S

[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.

Perhaps .pushsection and .popsection should be used in some or all
macros like this?

Or am I smoking crack?

Kip

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Ralf Baechle]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:05:08AM -0800, Kip Walker wrote:

> 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?

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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> 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. 

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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Ralf Baechle]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > 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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Thiemo Seufer]

Ralf Baechle wrote:
[snip]
> >  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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:12:54PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
> [snip]
> > >  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.

Where did you get this information from?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:45:42PM -0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
> > > 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?

There isn't one yet; I'm hoping within three months.  I'm going to try
to roll the ball a little this week.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Ralf Baechle]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:28:16PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:28:16 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
> To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
> Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>,
>         Kip Walker <kwalker@broadcom.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
> Subject: Re: .section problems in entry.S
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:45:42PM -0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > 
> > > > 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?
> 
> 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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:37:30PM -0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 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...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Thiemo Seufer]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:12:54PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > >  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.
> 
> 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

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:13:59PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:12:54PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > >  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.
> > 
> > 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.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: .section problems in entry.S

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> 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.

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