Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

H.J. Lu-27
I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI:

http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi

It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested.

Thanks.


H.J.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi
>
> It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested.

What's this supposed to be?  Reinventing the doomed iBCS2?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

H.J. Lu-27
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:53:30PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi
> >
> > It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested.
>
> What's this supposed to be?  Reinventing the doomed iBCS2?

Not at all. It is for generic ABI which is processor independent.
However, the current i386 psABI doesn't really reflect/cover what
have been added to i386 like MMX and SSE. Also gcc uses 16byte
stack alignment, instead of 4byte, for SSE. Should we create a
Google group for ia32 psABI?


H.J.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Joe Buck
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:11:25AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:53:30PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi
> > >
> > > It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested.
> >
> > What's this supposed to be?  Reinventing the doomed iBCS2?
>
> Not at all. It is for generic ABI which is processor independent.
> However, the current i386 psABI doesn't really reflect/cover what
> have been added to i386 like MMX and SSE. Also gcc uses 16byte
> stack alignment, instead of 4byte, for SSE. Should we create a
> Google group for ia32 psABI?

Is this supposed to be for gcc/binutils, or is it supposed to be
processor-independent?  And why a closed list?  Please don't go
down the path of re-creating what we rebelled against when we started
egcs.  Also, if there's a need to crosspost a message betwen your
new list and a gcc or binutils list, the message will bounce.

If it is for the free toolchain, and you really feel that a new
list is needed because it crosses gcc/binutils boundaries, a new
list hosted off of gcc.gnu.org would be better than a list that
is polluted with Yahoo's ads.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

H.J. Lu-27
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:54:10AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:11:25AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:53:30PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 03:32:45PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > I created a Google group to discuss generic ABI:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi
> > > >
> > > > It is by membership only. Let me know if you are interested.
> > >
> > > What's this supposed to be?  Reinventing the doomed iBCS2?
> >
> > Not at all. It is for generic ABI which is processor independent.
> > However, the current i386 psABI doesn't really reflect/cover what
> > have been added to i386 like MMX and SSE. Also gcc uses 16byte
> > stack alignment, instead of 4byte, for SSE. Should we create a
> > Google group for ia32 psABI?
>
> Is this supposed to be for gcc/binutils, or is it supposed to be
> processor-independent?  And why a closed list?  Please don't go
> down the path of re-creating what we rebelled against when we started
> egcs.  Also, if there's a need to crosspost a message betwen your
> new list and a gcc or binutils list, the message will bounce.
>

The ia32 psABI list will be processor-independent, not just for
gcc/binutils. I thought people might be more willing to discuss
things among people who are interested.


H.J.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Joseph Myers
In reply to this post by Joe Buck
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Joe Buck wrote:

> Is this supposed to be for gcc/binutils, or is it supposed to be
> processor-independent?  And why a closed list?  Please don't go
> down the path of re-creating what we rebelled against when we started
> egcs.  Also, if there's a need to crosspost a message betwen your
> new list and a gcc or binutils list, the message will bounce.
>
> If it is for the free toolchain, and you really feel that a new
> list is needed because it crosses gcc/binutils boundaries, a new
> list hosted off of gcc.gnu.org would be better than a list that
> is polluted with Yahoo's ads.

I agree that it should be an open list (or maybe separate ones for the
psABIs alongside that for the gABI).  I would have suggest having it on
lists.freestandards.org alongside DWARF.

--
Joseph S. Myers
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Menezes, Evandro
In reply to this post by H.J. Lu-27
HJ,

I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI.

However, I lean towards an open discussion list.  If necessary, I'd be glad to investigate hosting this list at http://www.x86-64.org, even though this discussion is about the i386 psABI.

_______________________________________________________
Evandro Menezes                          GNU Tools Team
512-602-9940                     Advanced Micro Devices
[hidden email]                      Austin, TX



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

H.J. Lu-27
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> HJ,
>
> I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI.
>
> However, I lean towards an open discussion list.  If necessary, I'd be glad to investigate hosting this list at http://www.x86-64.org, even though this discussion is about the i386 psABI.
>

One thing I miss the most is the search capability in the mailing
list achives. It isn't easy to find the things I am looking for
in an achive.

As for open group, Google group can be made open also.


H.J.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Dave Korn
On 28 September 2006 20:01, H. J. Lu wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
>> HJ,
>>
>> I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386
>> would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI.
>>
>> However, I lean towards an open discussion list.  If necessary, I'd be
>> glad to investigate hosting this list at http://www.x86-64.org, even
>> though this discussion is about the i386 psABI.  
>>
>
> One thing I miss the most is the search capability in the mailing
> list achives. It isn't easy to find the things I am looking for
> in an achive.

  Really?  I use google to do it, even for non-google-groups list archives:

site:sourceware.org inurl:binutils "search terms go here ... "

  You know the kind of thing.  Haven't had to suffer through an htDig session
in a looong time now.


    cheers,
      DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Joe Buck
In reply to this post by H.J. Lu-27
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:01:01PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:31PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> > HJ,
> >
> > I think that it's great that all the de facto changes adopted for i386 would be put in an extension or appendix to its psABI.
> >
> > However, I lean towards an open discussion list.  If necessary, I'd be glad to investigate hosting this list at http://www.x86-64.org, even though this discussion is about the i386 psABI.
> >
>
> One thing I miss the most is the search capability in the mailing
> list achives. It isn't easy to find the things I am looking for
> in an achive.

For gcc lists, use google with

search string site:gcc.gnu.org

> As for open group, Google group can be made open also.

Why do you want to use a facility that attaches an ad to every message?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

Christopher Faylor-9
In reply to this post by Dave Korn
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:09:15PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Haven't had to suffer through an htDig session in a looong time now.

We haven't used htDig on sourceware for a few months now.

It's mnogosearch these days.

cgf