[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Latest sources from CVS.

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: Latest sources from CVS.
From: Thiemo Seufer <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:45:58 +0100
Cc: Carsten Langgaard <>, Ralf Baechle <>, "Kevin D. Kissell" <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Er, well, for some values of 'fine'. In principle, 64 bit code shouldn't
> > be disguised in O32 objects. OTOH i must admit it's a bit early to use
> > binutils N32 for this purpose.
>  Which wouldn't work either as it implies 32-bit pointers, while gcc still
> emits 64-bit assembly.

Which should be enough for smaller address spaces.

> If we want to preserve the setup cleanly, we
> probably need yet another ABI model in gcc (especially in the face of the
> coming changes to get rid of assembly macros), with sign-extended 32-bit
> pointers for accessing program segments and 64-bit ones for the remaining
> addresses.

Do you think this is worth the hassle? N64 offers better flexibility in
the large memory case at some performance cost, and it's conceptionally


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>