Can we debate in this mailing list? thanks
On 7/9/23 22:04, Paul Koning wrote:
Because implementing an ABI, or dealing with an incompatibnle change, is hard
work.
you could just use one ABI..(that's what you have)..you can use other
, only at a cost of specifying an ABI version
the abi
Because implementing an ABI, or dealing with an incompatibnle change, is hard
work. Also, ABI stability means that old binaries work. So ABI stability
isn't so much a requirement for the compiler as it is a requirement for any
sane operating system. An OS that changes ABI without an extremely
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023, 22:20 André Albergaria Coelho via Gcc,
wrote:
> Could gcc have an option to specify ABI?
>
> say
>
>
> gcc something.c -g -abi 1 -o something
>
Sure, it could do, but what would it do? What would "-abi 1" mean? Which
ABI would it relate to?
What are you actually asking about
It does, for machine architectures that have multiple ABIs. MIPS is an example
where GCC has supported this for at least 20 years.
paul
> On Jul 6, 2023, at 5:19 PM, André Albergaria Coelho via Gcc
> wrote:
>
> Could gcc have an option to specify ABI?
>
> say
>
>
> gcc something.c
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 05:57, Jason Mancini wrote:
>
> Any notable ABI changes from 9 to 10?
Any such changes will be documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html
On 11/18/2010 01:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42670#c8
I'm sorry, yesterday didn't follow those exchanges in any detail, was
too absorbed by something else. Thus, if I understand correctly,
updating the testsuite in such a way is more or less an obvious change
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is to warn people that between yesterday and today
> abi/demangle/regression/cw-13.cc regressed on x86 / x86_64 linux: it
> looks like somebody didn't regression test the C++ testsuite carefully
> enough.
>
> HJ, could you please
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
