On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > 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.
But gas will complain of the same address truncation as for o32.
> > 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
> cleaner.
Remember we are writing of the kernel -- we don't know what userland is
going to bring us -- a user pointer need not fit in 32 bits.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|