This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: X32 psABI status

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
Cc: x32-abi at googlegroups dot com, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:02:03 -0800
Subject: Re: X32 psABI status
References: <AANLkTikgfv+L9WS4s6n5mQcXWTzc6YMNUSsgBiAOmKbE@mail.gmail.com><87aai1gdr7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de><4D5711E0.7020306@zytor.com>

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 01:10 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Why is the ia32 compatiblity kernel interface used?
>
> Because there is no way in hell we're designing in a second
> compatibility ABI in the kernel (and it has to be a compatibility ABI,
> because of the pointer size difference.)

I think he is asking why not create a new ABI layer for the kernel
like it is done for n32 for MIPS.

-- Andrew

References:
- X32 psABI status
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: X32 psABI status
  - From: Florian Weimer
- Re: X32 psABI status
  - From: H. Peter Anvin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]