Subject: Re: 64-bit ABIs
To: Steve Woodford <>
From: Ben Harris <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 04/29/2003 22:54:29
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Steve Woodford wrote:

> I'm not an authority on these matters, but I'm pretty sure that the sh5
> ABI requires 32-bit values to be correctly sign-extended when held in
> registers, regardless of the signedness of their type. I've certainly had
> to tweak some sh5 asm to make sure unsigned 32-bit results are still
> sign-extended.

OK.  That sounds like we're stuck with RENAME.

> You could send me your patches so I can try them on sh5 to see what
> breaks, if anything. ;-)

<> is a simple patch
to change us over.  The important question is whether applications built
after this patch work correctly with libc built before it.  Alternatively,
you could examine the code generated for libc and check whether it changes

Ben Harris                                                   <>
Portmaster, NetBSD/acorn26           <URL:>