This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ 3.1 EH broken for irix6.5
- To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Subject: Re: g++ 3.1 EH broken for irix6.5
- From: "William C. Cox" <bcox at windriver dot com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 07:28:54 -0700
- cc: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner), mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
From: Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>
To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: g++ 3.1 EH broken for irix6.5
> On 04-Aug-2037, Richard Kenner, GNU C Maintainer <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > It is not a question of what the SVR4 ABI specifies -- it a question
> > of what we have already done. If we change this, we have changed
> > the meaning of programs written to work with GCC.
> >
> > Yes, but that only matters if the programs are using features they are
> > entitled to use based on documentation.
>
> If any programs use packed structs (or structs containing packed structs)
> in binary interfaces, then we can't change their representation without
> breaking binary compatibility.
>
In the emdbedded world, lots of folks use packed structs.
Our customers, for example, use packed structs to:
1) describe data structures communicated from the 'Net
such as IP packet headers
2) describe I/O registers as a group mapped into memory
A change in the meaning of packing would affect many of
our customers, especially thos doing low-level hardware
control with GCC.
Please don't change packing/alignment on all of us!