------- Comment #8 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-12 00:51 ------- >I suppose that by "32-bit ABI for the x86" you mean a document with >1990-1996 SCO copyrights.
I was going by the linux standards base, which still links to: http://www.caldera.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf which I believe is still the current official ABI of Linux. >This document should be considered of only marginal relevant to current >systems; it may have described an ABI for some particular system that is >>now obsolete, but is not an accurate description of (for example) the ABI >used on IA32 GNU/Linux I thought that was precisely what the linux standards base was, and it says word (4-byte) alignment of the stack. >which is a de facto ABI with no written document corresponding precisely. This is a link where people mention that fact that gcc is behaving non-standardly, so people who want to interoperate with gcc better adopt their non-standard behavior. How do you like it when MS does that? It seems incredibly foolish to me that just because gcc doesn't want to do some trivial bit twiddling in the function prologue, you've decided to break the ABI, all so that you can lose performance when people need ABI compliance, as well as making interoperation much harder for everyone. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496
