This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:28:01 -0800
- Subject: Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1
- References: <yddbpgf4io8.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <email@example.com>
Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> ** I also consider obsoleting support for the O32 ABI: the SGI linker used
>> is different from the N32/N64 ld, and has repeatedly caused problems
>> which couldn't be resolved even when SGI still had full IRIX
>> support. Also, the ISO C99 support in libc is only available for the
>> N32 and N64 ABIs.
> Yeah, that's a difficult one. On the one hand, I can see that it
> doesn't make sense to support an ABI that was there for compatibility
> with IRIX 5 and earlier (which we're declaring obselete). On the other,
> I think o32 worked better with the GNU linker than it did with the
> SGI linker. E.g. I remember hitting GOT overflow problems with the
> SGI o32 linker (which didn't support multiple GOTs) that were solved
> by using the GNU linker.
> But that was a long time ago (binutils 2.15?) and I don't know how
> well it works now. And I still can't see any reason why IRIX 6.5
> users would prefer o32 over n32. I certainly don't object to
> removing o32 support from the IRIX port.
I agree with removing support for o32 from the Irix port.
However, it would not surprise me to discover that there are embedded
systems out there still using o32, with assembly functions which
expect the o32 calling convention. I would be cautious about removing
support for o32 entirely.