On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> writes: > >>> ** I also consider obsoleting support for the O32 ABI: the SGI linker used >>> is different from the N32/N64 ld, and has repeatedly caused problems >>> which couldn't be resolved even when SGI still had full IRIX >>> support. Also, the ISO C99 support in libc is only available for the >>> N32 and N64 ABIs. >> >> Yeah, that's a difficult one. On the one hand, I can see that it >> doesn't make sense to support an ABI that was there for compatibility >> with IRIX 5 and earlier (which we're declaring obselete). On the other, >> I think o32 worked better with the GNU linker than it did with the >> SGI linker. E.g. I remember hitting GOT overflow problems with the >> SGI o32 linker (which didn't support multiple GOTs) that were solved >> by using the GNU linker. >> >> But that was a long time ago (binutils 2.15?) and I don't know how >> well it works now. And I still can't see any reason why IRIX 6.5 >> users would prefer o32 over n32. I certainly don't object to >> removing o32 support from the IRIX port. > > I agree with removing support for o32 from the Irix port. > > However, it would not surprise me to discover that there are embedded > systems out there still using o32, with assembly functions which > expect the o32 calling convention. I would be cautious about removing > support for o32 entirely.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're stuck with using GCC 3.x either ;) Richard.
