On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:54:10AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:11:25AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:53:30PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI: > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi > > > > > > > > It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested. > > > > > > What's this supposed to be? Reinventing the doomed iBCS2? > > > > Not at all. It is for generic ABI which is processor independent. > > However, the current i386 psABI doesn't really reflect/cover what > > have been added to i386 like MMX and SSE. Also gcc uses 16byte > > stack alignment, instead of 4byte, for SSE. Should we create a > > Google group for ia32 psABI? > > Is this supposed to be for gcc/binutils, or is it supposed to be > processor-independent? And why a closed list? Please don't go > down the path of re-creating what we rebelled against when we started > egcs. Also, if there's a need to crosspost a message betwen your > new list and a gcc or binutils list, the message will bounce. >
The ia32 psABI list will be processor-independent, not just for gcc/binutils. I thought people might be more willing to discuss things among people who are interested. H.J.
