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 21:54:26 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: Andy Johnson , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org References: <200101210245.VAA25704@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200101210245.VAA25704@mal-ach.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012021542604.13943@localhost> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Hi, Boy are we on different pages! On Saturday 20 January 2001 21:45, David Edelsohn wrote: > You asked about a stdarg extension. That is what I have been > discussing. > I thought you said that vararg changes were C standards issues and not GCC issues. So I have been asking about the process of the ABI change since you said you could not impact on the decision to add a MACRO to hide our unique varargs. I never wanted to change the varargs, I wanted a macro to hide passing pointers and dereferencing va_lists. It would make no sense to break the abi on vararg passing and then support a change on returning small structures to support the abi. I am interested in the process of if and when the abi change will be made that Andy wants to make myself clearer. Can you shed some light on this? Kevin ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/