Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > Er, well, for some values of 'fine'. In principle, 64 bit code shouldn't > > be disguised in O32 objects. OTOH i must admit it's a bit early to use > > binutils N32 for this purpose. > > Which wouldn't work either as it implies 32-bit pointers, while gcc still > emits 64-bit assembly. Which should be enough for smaller address spaces. > If we want to preserve the setup cleanly, we > probably need yet another ABI model in gcc (especially in the face of the > coming changes to get rid of assembly macros), with sign-extended 32-bit > pointers for accessing program segments and 64-bit ones for the remaining > addresses. Do you think this is worth the hassle? N64 offers better flexibility in the large memory case at some performance cost, and it's conceptionally cleaner. Thiemo
