lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Where is it written?
Date
Followup to:  <20001110192751.A2766@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org>
By author: Michael Meissner <meissner@spectacle-pond.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Generally with ABIs you don't want to mess with it (otherwise you can't be
> guaranteed that a library built by somebody else will be compatible with your
> code, without all sorts of bits in the e_flags field). It allows multiple
> compilers to be provided that all interoperate (as long as they follow the same
> spec).
>
> Don't get me wrong -- in my 25 years of compiler hacking, I've never seen an
> ABI that I was completely happy with, including ABI's that I designed myself.
> ABIs by their nature are a compromise. That particular ABI was short sighted
> in that it wants only 32-bit alignment for doubles, instead of 64-bit alignment
> for instance, and also doesn't align the stack to higher alignment boundaries.
>

We can mess with the ABI, but it requires a wholescale rev of the
entire system. We have had such revs before -- each major rev of libc
is one -- but they are incredibly painful. However, if we find
ourselves in a situation where there are enough reasons to introduce
libc.so.7 then perhaps looking at some revs to the ABI might be in
order -- passing arguments in registers and aligning the stack to 64
bits probably would be the main items.

-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans