On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:20:38PM +, 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
issue
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:57:50PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > H.J. Lu writes:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > > > about sign-extending result
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:57:50PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > >
> > > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > > about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before co
H.J. Lu writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> > about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before correct,
> > or what we do now? I don't believe that it doesn't matter.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:32:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> So, what now? Can we even agree about what the psABI actually says
> about sign-extending result values? Was what we did before correct,
> or what we do now? I don't believe that it doesn't matter.
You can follow up with this th
gcc (x86) recently changed its behaviour when returning values shorter
than int. It used to sign extend, and now it doesn't.
short func2( short *size) { return *size; }
trunk:
func2:
pushl %ebp
movl%esp, %ebp
movl8(%ebp), %eax
movzwl (%eax), %eax
