From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24727 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 13:58:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 24719 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 13:58:17 -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; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:57:59 +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 m08DvuNs001430 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:57:56 -0500 Received: from zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (vpn-14-83.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.83]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m08DvtRP012647; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:57:56 -0500 Received: from littlepinkcloud.COM (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m08Dvp5v012975; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:57:55 GMT Received: (from aph@localhost) by littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.8/8.13.5/Submit) id m08DvoVd012972; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:57:50 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18307.33118.456533.834701@zebedee.pink> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: ABI compatibility regression: Return values on x86 In-Reply-To: <20080107210457.GA10004@lucon.org> References: <18306.28712.965027.740080@zebedee.pink> <20080107210457.GA10004@lucon.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.93.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 H.J. Lu writes: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +0000, 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 thread in ia32 psABI discussion group: > > http://groups.google.com/group/ia32-abi/browse_thread/thread/f47e0106b21d9269 Thanks for the reference. The attitude there looks surprisingly complacent, but if Intel and gcc x86 maintainers agree that it doesn't matter I suppose I'll have to defer to the weight of opinion. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903