public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/38496] Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced follow the x8632 ABI
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:54:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081215145251.10330.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-38496-12761@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #13 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu  2008-12-15 14:52 -------
>No; "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" is a well-known saying.

And also one without application here.  I am aware of no other standard for
Linux ABI other than the one in the linux standard base.  Gcc did not choose
another standard, it violated the one and only existing standard.  I am not
arguing that standards should never be changed, but rather that you shouldn't
violate an existing one without reason.  The reason gcc had to make this change
is mere convenience (it keeps you from doing a bit-level operation and a
register save in the preamble), which is not near strong enough a reason to
take something that used to support the standard (gcc before this decision) and
make it support absolutely no standard (your position now).  Please try to
avoid the mischaracterizations you are making: you have not switched from
standard A to standard B, you have switched from standard A to no standard.

>Then you should have made it clear much earlier in this discussion that
>Windows is your concern.  Because there is no one ABI for "i?86-*-*", and
>an ABI written for ELF-based Unix systems 1990-1996 is far, far less
>relevant to PECOFF-based Windows in 2008 than the limited relevance to
>Linux in 2008.

Actually, both windows and the linux base ABI handle arguments the exact same
way.  So, until gcc arbitrarily stopped supporting the standard, there *was*
uniformity in the x86 world . . .

But, it appears to me that while your standards compliance is permantly broken
(due, ironically, for backwards compatibility with your previous decision), the
problem I was having with gcc misaligning arrays when a standard-compliant ABI
is requested, has at least been solved in gcc 4.4.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-12-15 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-11 22:54 [Bug fortran/38496] New: " whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-11 23:03 ` [Bug fortran/38496] " whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-11 23:05 ` [Bug target/38496] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 23:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 23:26 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-11 23:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 23:44 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-12  0:02 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-12-12  0:53 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-12  1:06 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2008-12-12  1:26 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-12-12  1:50 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-15  0:23 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-12-15 14:54 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu [this message]
2008-12-15 18:19 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-12-15 21:34 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-15 21:39   ` Andrew Thomas Pinski
2008-12-15 21:40 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
2008-12-15 22:03 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-15 23:02   ` Andrew Pinski
2008-12-15 23:03 ` pinskia at gmail dot com
2008-12-15 23:40 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2008-12-16  0:10 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2009-03-18 13:25 ` sliwa at cft dot edu dot pl
2009-07-23 13:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-23 14:35 ` mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-24 12:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-24 17:05 ` whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
2009-07-31  1:18 ` mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-10-23  9:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-38496-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 13:12 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081215145251.10330.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).