Re: UML and fastcall/FASTCALL

2006-12-08 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:33:04AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 01:59:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > UML on i386 is now the only case where fastcall/FASTCALL is not a noop. > > If i386 doesn't use it any more, then UML shouldn't either. The only reason > there's support f

Re: UML and fastcall/FASTCALL

2006-12-08 Thread Jeff Dike
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 01:59:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > UML on i386 is now the only case where fastcall/FASTCALL is not a noop. If i386 doesn't use it any more, then UML shouldn't either. The only reason there's support for it in UML is that I was copying i386.