From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA00701 for ; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:27:39 -0600 To: Philipp Rumpf cc: Matthew Wilcox , parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] HPUX syscall ABI? Reply-To: law@cygnus.com In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 02 Aug 1999 06:21:41 +0200. <19990802062141.A23880@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:27:14 -0600 Message-ID: <31393.933568034@upchuck.cygnus.com> From: Jeffrey A Law List-ID: In message <19990802062141.A23880@suse.de>you write: > Is this gcc-specific ? It's a well known concept. I would be amazed at any compiler that doesn't do something similar. > I can imagine cases for which the PA1.1 ABI is better but of course I am > not sure how frequent they are. Not if you write your compiler in a reasonable way (assuming we're just discussing how many registers are used). There are certainly ways the PA32 ABI is more efficient than the PA64 ABI, particularly when calling functions without prototypes. FWIW there is another PA32 ABI which appeared on hp's osf system which used %r21-%r26 for passing parameters. If you look deep into some of the mach+osf code you'll find thunks to deal with that gem since we (Utah) used the standard hpux ABI on our mach+osf port. jeff