[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: [sw-dev] Mandating that pcrel_lo and pcrel_hi stay in the same section



Ping fwding this in case it has not been seen widely. Is it listed in bugs.debuan.org yet?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Subject: [sw-dev] Mandating that pcrel_lo and pcrel_hi stay in the same section
To: sw-dev@groups.riscv.org


There's a proposal out on the RISC-V ELF psABI specification's github repo that is nominally an ABI change.  The ABI is frozen, but we do make exceptions for cases like this where we think this quirk is unlikely to be useful and causes trouble for implementations.  The full discussion can be seen here

   https://github.com/riscv/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/issues/90

Since it's officially an ABI change I wanted to bring it up here to make sure nobody was relying on it.  Given that the quirk causes binutils to fail when linking and was only found when trying to simplify LLD we think it's unlikely that any objects taking advantage of this ABI quirk exist in the wild, which is the only reason we're even considering the change in the first place.

The maintainers of the various RISC-V toolchains appear to be in agreement that adding a restriction to the ABI is the right way to go, but I thought it would be good to bring up here in case someone wasn't watching github.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+unsubscribe@groups.riscv.org.
To post to this group, send email to sw-dev@groups.riscv.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/group/sw-dev/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/mhng-8c2e28e9-5a0c-4fd8-b81d-dddbd6e5f543%40palmer-si-x1c4.



--
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


Reply to: