summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch')
-rw-r--r--patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch45
1 files changed, 45 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch b/patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5ae9efe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/patches/binutils/2.15/binutils-2.15-vmx.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+Grabbed with
+wget 'http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/opcodes/ppc-opc.c.diff?r1=1.70&r2=1.71&cvsroot=src'
+See
+http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2004-05/msg00071.html
+and
+http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils-cvs/2004-05/msg00111.html
+
+This fixes problems like
+{standard input}: Assembler messages:
+{standard input}:1: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `dssall'
+which show up in binutils-2.15 when building the Linux kernel,
+or possibly failed compilations when building setjmp/longjmp in glibc.
+
+An alternative fix would be to pass -many to the assembler.
+A patch to do that for glibc is at
+wget 'http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=libc-alpha&date=2004-05&msgid=40B36E8C.9030609%40us.ibm.com'
+Yet another, better, fix would be for gcc to generate assembly
+that told the assembler which processor type to use.
+Presumably the Linux kernel sources would need a fix, too.
+Probably better to just fix binutils to accept sources that it used to.
+
+
+===================================================================
+RCS file: /cvs/src/src/opcodes/ppc-opc.c,v
+retrieving revision 1.70
+retrieving revision 1.71
+diff -u -r1.70 -r1.71
+--- src/opcodes/ppc-opc.c 2004/05/05 13:43:36 1.70
++++ src/opcodes/ppc-opc.c 2004/05/19 05:11:48 1.71
+@@ -1004,8 +1004,13 @@
+
+ /* If only one bit of the FXM field is set, we can use the new form
+ of the instruction, which is faster. Unlike the Power4 branch hint
+- encoding, this is not backward compatible. */
+- else if ((dialect & PPC_OPCODE_POWER4) != 0 && (value & -value) == value)
++ encoding, this is not backward compatible. Do not generate the
++ new form unless -mpower4 has been given, or -many and the two
++ operand form of mfcr was used. */
++ else if ((value & -value) == value
++ && ((dialect & PPC_OPCODE_POWER4) != 0
++ || ((dialect & PPC_OPCODE_ANY) != 0
++ && (insn & (0x3ff << 1)) == 19 << 1)))
+ insn |= 1 << 20;
+
+ /* Any other value on mfcr is an error. */