Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-30 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:09:15PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Haven't had to suffer through an htDig session in a looong time now. We haven't used htDig on sourceware for a few months now. It's mnogosearch these days. cgf

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:01:01PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote: > > HJ, > > > > I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 > > would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI. > > > > However, I lean

RE: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Dave Korn
On 28 September 2006 20:01, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote: >> HJ, >> >> I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 >> would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI. >> >> However, I lean towards an open dis

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread H. J. Lu
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote: > HJ, > > I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 would > be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI. > > However, I lean towards an open discussion list. If necessary, I'd be glad > to inves

RE: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Menezes, Evandro
HJ, I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI. However, I lean towards an open discussion list. If necessary, I'd be glad to investigate hosting this list at http://www.x86-64.org, even though this discussion

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Joe Buck wrote: > 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

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread H. J. Lu
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 ge

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Joe Buck
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

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread H. J. Lu
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 intereste

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

2006-09-28 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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?