On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > 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. But gas will complain of the same address truncation as for o32. > > 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. Remember we are writing of the kernel -- we don't know what userland is going to bring us -- a user pointer need not fit in 32 bits. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
