On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 19:56 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jim Gettys wrote:
> [snip]
> > This isn't saying we wouldn't add such a patch to X, though patches for
> > a particular compiler on a particular architecture do get frowned on
> > quite a lot: I just suspect ARM would find more code "just worked" if
> > GCC behaved like other compilers in this case, and ARM would be better
> > off as a result.
>
> Well, and deliberate ABI changes are frowned upon by toolchain people.
> To me (without having looked further than the bug report) this seems to
> be an implementation bug in xlib, which appears to assume some magic
> number as element granularity in the array instead of the proper
> sizeof(element). So the correct fix for it wouldn't be
> architecture-dependent.
Depends on your point of view.
One point of view is that the current ARM definition is different than
every other platform, and should be fixed.
I'm not enough of a C language lawyer to judge if the way it is
currently defined is "correct" or not; I'm just observing what common
idiom is/has been on other platforms, and having ARM an outlier is not a
way to get the most software on ARM. (having spent quite a bit of my
time making things run on ARM over the last 5 years, I know what my
personal opinion is: compatibility with other platforms more than
genuflection at either the C language specification or the altar of no
ABI change....)
- Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
