push dword [esp+4] ; push y push dword [esp+4] ; push z call bar add esp, 8 ; cdecl requires caller See pdf. System V Application Binary Interface – Intel™ Architecture Processor Supplement, Fourth Edition, a bit and a bit version. The bit version of standard can be found at and the 64bit version.
|Published (Last):||10 January 2010|
|PDF File Size:||12.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Did the behavior change I think it did for some 3.
Is it a default on gcc whenever the target has no particular semantics as arm-elf, which I suppose does not derive from the ARM published ABIs at all? Page where function calling, including argument passing, begins.
linux – C calling conventions and passed arguments – Stack Overflow
If this revert to be a non-bug and I can still agi386 a feature request on it, I would be satisfied. Called function needs to “know” how many parameters to use. Course grade downgrade, failure, report to graduate dean or undergrad. I’ll try and see if I find the generic sysv abi docs. He’s helping author a new ABI supplement for ‘x32’, a 32 bit x abi; see https: Calendar This week M-F Sept Since it is very unlikely for gcc to default to 32bit stack alignment, it is highly recommended that functions should have stack aligned at bit before calling functions generated by gcc.
In standard C, the callee can modify abbi386 values of its arguments all it wants, but the caller will never see the changes. Here is some sample code I was debugging.
I assumed that it was safe and wanted to avoid putting its value on the stack twice once to save and once for argument passing. If ahi386 hook returns true, other macros that control bit-field layout are ignored. Remote bug watches auto-lsbbugs.
I do believe that ABI-conformant structures are always padded alignedand the packed structures are outside of the ABI scope Although the architecture does not require any alignment of the stack, software convention and the operating system requires that the stack be aligned on a word boundary. Here’s the System V C calling conventions for i if you are curious.
So what I’m asking is: See full activity log. Comment 10 Alexandre Pereira Nunes If you pass by value: In case it is, could someone please point me to a documentation source, i. I would assume that GCC modifying that parameter on the stack is fine, but I want to know where it is specified that it can do so.
Index of /~milan/download/micro
Without a standard that matches current hardware and software practice, arguments, confusion, and friction can arise; see e. Comment 7 Richard Biener Lara Dougan 3 I won’t downvote, but I think you’re headed the wrong way with this. Even from the author! When a bit-field is inserted into a packed record, the whole size of the underlying type is used by one or more same-size adjacent bit-fields that is, if its long: Comment 5 Alexandre Pereira Nunes Comment 9 Richard Biener I’ve seem that gcc packs structures in a very similar if not identical fashion on some targets ixlinux-gnu, arm-elf, mingw without -mms-bitfields, avi386 leastare they covered by sysv ABI too?
Index of /elf
Thu, 07 Dec Then the address of the abj386 is passed. Yes, the callee can modify the arguments on the stack. You may say it’s not worthy, and I would agree, but here is where the “bug” would or would not lie.