On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:20:38PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> guarantee, but I didn't read it that way. The core problem is that
> the psABI is very badly worded.
Bad wording isn't the only problem :-(. That is why there is an
ia32 psABI discussion group. You can bring up any ia32 psABI
issue
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:57:50PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > H.J. Lu writes:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > > > about sign-extending result
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:57:50PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > >
> > > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > > about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before co
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before correct,
> > or what we do now? I don't believe that it doesn't matter.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before correct,
> or what we do now? I don't believe that it doesn't matter.
You can follow up with this th
