| 1 |
Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 22.11 +0300, Alexey Shvetsov ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> PS also with this feature seems amd64 and x86 can be merged in one |
| 4 |
> arch (like it was done in kernel) since its only abis of ia32 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
I would suggest against that. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For the kernel it's somewhat easier, but for userland, x86 and amd64 are |
| 9 |
definitely far enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it'll take a few |
| 10 |
more years before we can easily consider the two keywords a single one. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Just think of a relatively-common situation. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
void *bar = foo(); |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
with foo implicitly declared. On 32-bit userland it'll be "all fine", |
| 17 |
but will crash badly on 64-bit userland. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And this is without adding to the necessity of PIC, and the rest of |
| 20 |
little details that this brings with it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For the sake of safety, let's _not_ merge this, as we have said too many |
| 23 |
times for me to dig up. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And finally, let's not call it ia32. No matter what Intel wants it to be |
| 27 |
called, if you were to call it like that, you'd just have a number of |
| 28 |
people asking why their ia64 stage don't work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
| 32 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
| 35 |
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |
Archives