This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: linker problem: relocation truncated to fit
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: linker problem: relocation truncated to fit
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:52:30 -0700
- CC: hjl at lucon dot org, rmurray at cyberhqz dot com, linux-mips at oss dot sgi dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010916091654.C1812@lucon.org> <Pine.BSO.email@example.com> <20010917000719.B25531@false.linpro.no> <20010916153857.H22750@cyberhqz.com> <20010916155003.B1446@lucon.org> <20010917154754.E30386@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:47:54 -0700
> From: Richard Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Ryan Murray <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:50:03PM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > I don't think mips is the only platform which has this problem. Do
> > Alpha, PowerPC and Sparc have similar problems like that? What are
> > the solutions for them?
> Alpha has a complicated scheme by which every input object file may
> be assigned to a different GOT, each of which is limited to 64k. The
> other reason this works is that variables assigned to .sdata/.sbss
> are _not_ treated differently wrt code generation. Instead, this is
> optimized via linker relaxation.
> IA-64 will overflow its small data area at 22 bits.
> PowerPC and Sparc do not use .sdata/.sbss.
Actually, powerpc could use .sdata/.sbss for shared libraries, but it
never got implemented, and it would have the disadvantage that such
code can't be linked into non-shared objects.
It would be a significant speed/space win for certain objects, most
- Geoffrey Keating <email@example.com>