From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kevin B. Hendricks" Reply-To: khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca To: David Edelsohn , khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca Subject: Re: Issue with small struct return values Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:52:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: Andy Johnson , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org References: <200101210041.TAA25654@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200101210041.TAA25654@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012020523900.13943@localhost> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Hi David, > Proposing an extension to GCC is a lot more difficult than having > GCC follow the ABI as written. Whose decision will this be? Is this going to be a community based decision or will gcc decide to do this unlaterally with or without the community's support? What voice should the currently shipping distributions have in this? I saw no discussion on gcc-bugs about this issue (and was not privy to your and Geoff's previuous discussion with Andy about this issue). That is why I responded to Andy in the first place. What process, if any exists for this decision to be made? I assume you wanted a community based decision since you asked Andy to cc this to the linuxppc dev list. Also, on a more technical note, how many <= 8 byte structures are there in actual use anyway? I would guess that most uninos are less than or eqaul to 8 bytes and so returning unions would change. So according to the abi, would we would passing a union in to a function via a pointer but returning one in registers? Kevin ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/