Subject: Re: 64-bit ABIs
To: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 04/29/2003 16:40:03
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Ben Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Ben Harris wrote:
> > > So, my question is: are there any systems on which the ABI differs for
> > > functions which return uint32_t as opposed to unsigned long? For the
> > > obvious implementation (function return value in a register), I'd expect
> > > not, but I'd like confirmation of this so I can decide how to proceed.
> > Uhm, I'm confused. Isn't the right way to do this using RENAME magic?
> > Thus it won't matter?
> <FX: checks closely> I _think_ RENAME is powerful enough, yes. I'd prefer
> to avoid it if possible, though, since it always seems to cause pain as
> users update header files before they've updated libc and then find they
> can't link anything.
Uhm, who does that anymore? It's not supported, for good reason. :-)
Also, we've used RENAME for a lot of things before, such as when we change
struct stat & stat(2), and we've suffered through headers using it.
I think RENAME is really the way we want to go. It's how we've handled
this in the past, it is the most direct way to fix the problem, and it's
how we're going to deal with syscall changes in the future. :-)