Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:20:01 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WEIRD! div() broken on -CURRENT? Message-ID: <20021221162001.A17127@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20021220204325.A76249@FreeBSD.org>; from jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:43:25PM -0800 References: <1040437478.29101.23.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20021221145741.A14018@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20021220204325.A76249@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 08:43:25PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> [ Data: 2002-12-20 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: WEIRD! div() broken on -CURRENT? ] > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:24:39PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > I'm doing something wrong, right? I mean, this can't be right. I've > > > verified this now on a P4 running: > > [...] > > > > I can reproduce it here. It looks like gcc is using a strange calling > > convention that the i386 div.S does not understand (MI div.c seems to, though). > > TenDRA and GCC3 use a different struct return format than we used to > use (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-01/msg01783.html) and > we never had a flag day for the old format, and there's no UPDATING or > whatnot notes about this AFAIK. This means at least div has to change > to use the new calling convention. [...] I've imported the versions of div.S and ldiv.S from NetBSD HEAD which work properly with the new calling convention. Thanks for mentioning (on IRC) that the pcc struct return convention had something to do with it. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021221162001.A17127>