[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Where is it written?

[Peter Anvin]
> At the time the original x86 ABI was created, a lot of C code was
> still K&R, and thus prototypes didn't exist...

True enough. That does explain a lot. But what about the Alpha? From
reading gcc source awhile back I seem to remember that most if not all
parameters are passed in registers. How does *that* work with varargs
and no prototypes? Or does it?

> I don't think we want to introduce a new ABI in user space at this
> time. If we ever have to major-rev the ABI (, then we
> should consider this.

Ah, but kernel-side? My point was that if gcc (and binutils) is
flexible enough to let you pick an ABI at runtime, perhaps a RISCoid
ABI for x86 could coexist with the SysV one, to be used initially for
self-contained code like the kernel. (And later, a possible transition
in userspace.)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.058 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site