On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
Don't we need to specify passing and returning char, short and int since they are smaller than the integer class, which is eightbytes? -- H.J.
