On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> I was referring to program properties:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>> >
>> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>> >
>> > Please di
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> I was referring to program properties:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
> >
> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
> >
> > Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
> > ent
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>>>
>>> The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16
>>> are
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>>
>> The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16
>> are not passed at all. Following the algorithm in section 3.2.3,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith
wrote:
> On Mon,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>
> The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16
> are not passed at all. Following the algorithm in section 3.2.3, each
> eightbyte is classified as NO_CLASS, and thus i
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16
are not passed at all. Following the algorithm in section 3.2.3, each
eightbyte is classified as NO_CLASS, and thus is not passed. So the
proposed change would only affect the beha
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
> >> >> "P
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
>> >> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
>> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
>>
>> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
>
> Thanks. So there's no problem using "POD f
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * H. J. Lu:
>>>
I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
modification and extension of generic System V Application Binar
* H. J. Lu:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * H.J. Lu [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * H. J. Lu:
>
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>>
>> I will start t
* H.J. Lu [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>
> I will start to document existing Linux extensions
On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
>
> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
Thanks. So there's no problem using "POD for the purposes of layout",
and the change to "POD for the purpos
* H. J. Lu:
> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
>
> I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
> I wil
Hi,
I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi
I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC.
I will propose some new e
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016
On 8 February 2016 at 18:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>>> A type is a s
On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
>>>
>>> How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)
>>> type and ..."?
>>
>> That's redundant, all POD types are standard-
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
>> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
>
> How about
On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)
ty
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
>>
>> How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)
>> type and ..."?
>
> That's redundant, all POD types are standard-layout types.
>
Apparently, not all standard-layout
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 16:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> My understanding is
>>
>> A type that is standard-layout means that it orders and packs its
>> members in a way that is compatible with C.
>>
>> What is the corresponding compatible type in C?
>
On 8 February 2016 at 16:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
> My understanding is
>
> A type that is standard-layout means that it orders and packs its
> members in a way that is compatible with C.
>
> What is the corresponding compatible type in C?
An empty structure, such as struct A.
One of the requirements f
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 15:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The standard-layout
On 8 February 2016 at 15:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> The standard-layout POD is well defined:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B1
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> The standard-layout POD is well defined:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B11#Modification_to_the_definition_of_plain_old_data
>>
On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> The standard-layout POD is well defined:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B11#Modification_to_the_definition_of_plain_old_data
>
> Here is the updated proposal for Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0.
GCC Clang
s0 non-emptynon-empty
s1 non-emptyempty
s2 non-emptyempty
s3
36 matches
Mail list logo
