From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-143345-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22296 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 14:36:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 22287 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 14:36:11 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (HELO QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:35:50 +0000
Received: from OMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.28]) 	by QMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast 	id aeZs1Y0010cQ2SLAA00N00; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:35:48 +0000
Received: from lucon.org ([76.126.237.145]) 	by OMTA10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast 	id aebR1Y00238uYQk8W00000; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:35:25 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=fYmO3zSF-rAA:10 a=uxrWOx5hLQaTwBfXnh4A:9 a=l8FRpsj5lbsL3YIKAkqbXdkKQ1QA:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 500) 	id DDA5CF82F9; Tue,  8 Jan 2008 06:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:36:00 -0000
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: ABI compatibility regression: Return values on x86
Message-ID: <20080108143547.GA16153@lucon.org>
References: <18306.28712.965027.740080@zebedee.pink> <20080107210457.GA10004@lucon.org> <18307.33118.456533.834701@zebedee.pink> <20080108141309.GA16021@lucon.org> <18307.34486.308051.435767@zebedee.pink>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <18307.34486.308051.435767@zebedee.pink>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:20:38PM +0000, 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
issues there.


H.J.