On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 12/09/2009 06:56 AM, Michael Matz wrote: >> >> >> >> Aren't bits in the _Bool byte of"bar" specified by the psABI >> > >> > Right now they are specified in the psABI, you suggested to remove that >> > specification. >> > >> >> The intent of H.J.'s proposal is to require bits <7:1> == 0 in all cases >> (and higher bits as don't cares, the same way a char is passed), > > Or bits <31:1> . But he also repeatedly suggests to remove the whole > sentence about the bit clearing. That's what I'm opposing. I'm not > against limiting the bit range that must be zero.
I just want _Bool to have the same specification for parameter pass and function return, ideally memory object. >> opposed to the current text which requires <63:1> == 0 when passed as >> registers or on the stack (and <7:1> == 0 when stored in a memory >> object.) Furthermore, the current psABI text is inconsistent for >> arguments are return values; this is a bug in the wordsmithing of the >> text rather than intentional, if I remember the original discussions >> correctly. > > Right, I remember the same. > Then fix the psABI. Thanks. -- H.J.
