This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc?

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, discuss at x86-64 dot org, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Girkar, Milind" <milind dot girkar at intel dot com>, "Kreitzer, David L" <david dot l dot kreitzer at intel dot com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:58:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc?
References: <6dc9ffc80912071033o20516ae1ta19a5a2521ec7f9a@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0912081738230.18785@wotan.suse.de> <6dc9ffc80912081024k1dcd4deer64b2005306d179f8@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/08/2009 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 
> We should just drop
> 
> ---
> When a value of type _Bool is passed in a register or on the stack,
> the upper 63 bits of the eightbyte shall be zero.
> ---
> 
> from psABI. Since _Bool has one byte in size with values of 0 and 1.
> Compilers have to clear upper 7 bits in one byte.
> 

What about the Solaris compiler?  It's probably the only other
significant user of the x86-64 ABI (the Qlogic and LLVM compilers I
presume will follow gcc.)

	-hpa

References:
- Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc?
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc?
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc?
  - From: H.J. Lu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]