On 7/20/05, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Pete Popov wrote: > > > Try the attached patch instead. > > Apart from other changes why not simply s/bal/jal/? Your proposed code > is bad if ever to be built to a 64-bit object. > In the case of s/bal/jal, I get the warning "No .cprestore pseudo-op used in PIC code". Is it safe to ignore this warning ? On the other hand, if I replace bal jump_to_label by la t9, jump_to_label jalr t9 I don't see any warning. What could be the reason ? Can you suggest, what should be done to make the code safe for building on 64 bit processor. --kishore
