This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Olivier Galibert" <galibert at pobox dot com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple dot com>, "Michael Matz" <matz at suse dot de>, "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "Joe Buck" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, "Aurelien Jarno" <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:43:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <47CF11D6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <738B72DB-A1D6-43F8-813A-E49688D05771@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <2F47E21A-9055-4EC3-99CF-B666BBC045C3@apple.com> <47CF3F09.firstname.lastname@example.org> <578FCA7D-D7A6-44F6-9310-4A97C13CDCBE@apple.com> <47CF44E7.email@example.com> <20080306135139.GA5236@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I agree with it. There is no right or wrong here Let's start from
scratch and figure out
what is the best way to handle this, assuming we are defining a new psABI.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:37 AM, NightStrike <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 3/6/08, Olivier Galibert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:12:07PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > It's a kernel bug, and it needs to be fixed.
> > I'm not convinced. It's been that way for 15 years, it's that way in
> > the BSD kernels, at that point it's a feature. The bug is in the
> > documentation, nowhere else. And in gcc for blindly trusting the
> > documentation.
> The issue should not be evaluated as: "It's always been that way,
> therefore, it's right." Instead, it should be: "What's the right way
> to do it?"
> You don't just change documentation because no existing code meets the
> requirement -- UNLESS -- the non-conforming code is actually the right
> way to do things.