From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32152 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2008 15:15:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 32130 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2008 15:15:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8BFF0FN003203; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:15:00 -0400 Received: from zebedee.pink (vpn-12-86.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.86]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m8BFEoS5012946; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:14:50 -0400 Message-ID: <48C935E9.4050108@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Fine CC: Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: x86_64 ABI question References: <48C92259.6050309@verizon.net> <48C93051.1050200@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <48C93051.1050200@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 John Fine wrote: > I'm not saying I assume such choices have been made with enough > attention to architecture specific considerations that the difference in > the performance factor alone would make me disregard those threads. I'm > saying (and correct me if you are seeing something I'm missing) that > those threads are very specific to are architecture and case that are > quite different from the one I asked about. Yes, but I suspect the answer would be the same. The change to gcc is generic, and affects all targets. HJ, are you listening? Is there a separate 64-bit discussion list? Andrew.