On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Paul Burton wrote: > One seemingly straightforward fix would be to make use of the PTR_LA > macro to emit the appropriate pseudo-instruction, however this would > involve including asm.h which is intended solely for inclusion in > assembly code. When included by C code its definition of various generic > & non-namespaced macros such as LONG, PTR, CAT etc cause numerous build > failures. This is however exactly what we do in several places, and I would recommend here as well. Can you point me at the earlier review of your proposal? > Instead fix this by adding a ".set gp=64" directive to inform the > assembler that general purpose registers are 64 bit for the dla > instruction. This is a lie, but no more so than using the dla > instruction to begin with. I agree using DLA unconditionally is wrong, so if using <asm/asm.h> and its PTR_LA turns out infeasible indeed, then please define a local macro that expands to LA or DLA as appropriate and does not cause a namespace issue, and use it in `instruction_hazard' (all instances) rather than this horrible hack. Maciej
