From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22023 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 16:55:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22015 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2007 16:55:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:55:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 6979 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2007 16:55:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.44.101?) (nathan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Aug 2007 16:55:05 -0000 Message-ID: <46D5A4E1.7020409@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:14:00 -0000 From: Nathan Sidwell User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Zippel CC: Kazu Hirata , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, law@redhat.com, schwab@suse.de Subject: Re: [patch] m68k: Fix binary compatibility problem with -mno-strict-align. (Take 2) References: <200708251536.l7PFa18t031289@sparrowhawk.codesourcery.com> <46D58D5B.6070104@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg02106.txt.bz2 Roman Zippel wrote: > I see. > What concerns me here is that this produces incompatibilities for ColdFire > code between Linux and other targets. It also makes the support for this > in libffi interesting (e.g. if you ever want Java support for ColdFire). Agreed. But unfortunately it is what it is. There's more to ABIs than just whether structures are returned in memory. For instance, %d0 and %a0 are used differently too wrt structure returning. And of course there are other ABI considerations too. > Since this is a special case I would seriously consider to ignore the > alignment mode for this in m68k_return_in_memory. Since this is an ABI > issue there probably should be an option to get the old behaviour. I'm strongly in favour of not breaking existing ABIs. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery