------- Comment #11 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-12 01:48 ------- >LSB may be a starting point for plausible hypotheses about the ABIs, but >you need to evaluate it critically to see whether each statement is >actually an accurate description of fact.
I.e., you are saying "we don't adhere to any standards: whatever we do is the standard". Again, I wonder how you feel about that attitude when microsoft says it? Would you like to argue that ODF is useless, since MSOffice binary formats are more accurate description of fact? I don't like it when MS purposely breaks a standard, and to find myself arguing with (I guess) another open/free software guy that ignoring the standard is the correct thing to do, kind of boggles my mind. If a standard is out of date, you write a new standard, or admit you are violating it in certain respects, not make the absurd claim that whatever you happen to like doing this week is the standard. Thanks to Lu for the pointer about better alignment behavior in later gccs. Unfortunately, the place this problem is killing me is Windows, where I believe they are still rocking along with g77, and gcc 3.x . . . Thanks, Clint -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496
