| 1 |
On Friday, September 16, 2011 01:46:49 Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:18:43 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 17:03:07 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:33:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 16:12:00 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:34:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> > > > KEYWORDS wise, i'd like to avoid having to add "x32" everywhere. |
| 8 |
> >> > > > instead, reusing "amd64". |
| 9 |
> >> > > |
| 10 |
> >> > > Hrm, wouldn't that be more like x86 keyword? AFAICS the type sizes |
| 11 |
> >> > > for x86 and x32 would match. |
| 12 |
> >> > |
| 13 |
> >> > the sizeof(long) and sizeof(void*) are the same between x86 and x32. |
| 14 |
> >> > however, that's about the only thing. for example, x32 gets access |
| 15 |
> >> > to 64bit registers when working with 64bit types (long long) and the |
| 16 |
> >> > tuple is x86_64-pc-linux- gnu. in general, it seems to be closer to |
| 17 |
> >> > amd64 than x32. |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> I'm rather thinking about potential issues. But OTOH packages fixed for |
| 20 |
> >> amd64 should probably work with x32 as well. Excluding asm code which |
| 21 |
> >> would probably need a third variant then. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > but i'd rather not introduce another KEYWORD when we can simply p.mask |
| 24 |
> > the package, or disable the asm when ABI == x32. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> My immediate thought, probably unworkable for some reason but from here |
| 27 |
> it looks useful for at least (what would be) ~x32 and as a jump-start on |
| 28 |
> the number of ~x32 packages, and it should at least prove educational to |
| 29 |
> have it shot down (<g>)... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
these things have a way of not being fixed for a very long time. p.mask in an |
| 32 |
x32 profile is a lot easier to work with and doesnt need to be "recovered" |
| 33 |
from down the line. |
| 34 |
-mike |
Archives