Subject: Re: 64-bit ABIs
To: None <>
From: Ben Harris <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 05/05/2003 15:12:15
In article <> you write:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Ben Harris wrote:
>> 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.
>To be honest, if the only ABI to be affected by this change is sh5, then I
>would say forget about RENAME and just do it. I know of only two people
>with sh5 hardware running NetBSD; myself and Jason Thorpe. I think either
>of us could recover from any shlib lossage which might ensue. :)

OK.  I've done that.  I would have announced it on the port-sh5 mailing
list, but you don't seem to have one.

Ben Harris