3 ms·
I really wish MSFT would support the x32 ABI[0]. While having a single amd64 ABI, compared to 6-7 active in the x86 days, has its advantages, MSFT already threw
by sherincall 10y ago
I really wish MSFT would support the x32 ABI[0]. While having a single amd64 ABI, compared to 6-7 active in the x86 days, has its advantages, MSFT already threw it away with vectorcall. And x32 is arguable more useful than vectorcall.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
- wolfgke 10y agoAn ABI for amd64 was consciously developed independently by the gcc developers and Microsoft. Microsoft did "the obvious thing" and extended __fastcall to define their ABI. Here are links about this topic: > http://stackoverflow.com/a/35619528/497193 http://stackoverflow.com/a/35619528/497193 > http://stackoverflow.com/a/4438515/497193 http://stackoverflow.com/a/4438515/497193 > http://stackoverflow.com/a/35621290/497193 http://stackoverflow.com/a/35621290/497193
- sp332 10y agoI already have 32-bit and 64-bit copies of all the libraries on my computer. I'm really not looking forward to having a third copy lying around.
- fsfod 10y agoThere are some ugly hacks[0] to run 64 bit code in a 32 bit process on windows by using retf switch to 64 bit code segment with one of the major limitations being you can't load 64 dlls into the process. [0]: http://blog.rewolf.pl/blog/?p=102 http://blog.rewolf.pl/blog/?p=102