Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Calling conventions (particularly 32-bit ARM)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:59:09 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vm0hrd$15tiu$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vlgngv$1ks4a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4903307dfcce354508c9fc016a4c1ea1@www.novabbs.org>
 <jwv34htql17.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
 <2025Jan8.230846@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <jwvr05cq4tx.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>
 <2025Jan9.082357@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vlrm00$5nlr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlrrrc$6pr1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:59:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c2e27b453553c0792e40b3161bdadf86";
	logging-data="1242718"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zhHmwJa+HVUPr2gLhJ4uU3wRspMrIZ4U="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U3KbDWHxKv6FZY/nhq8xcuiefXo=
In-Reply-To: <vlrrrc$6pr1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2531

On 10/01/2025 20:19, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> 
>> How many people actually want to use code where some functions are
>> called with an incorrect number of parameters?  Such code is /broken/.
> 
> Agreed (at least in priciple).
> 
>> If it ever gave results that the original users were happy with, it is
>> by luck - no matter what ABI you have for your new architecture and new
>> tools, it's pure luck whether things work or not in any sense.
> 
> It gets worse when the code in question has been around for decades,
> and is widely used.  Some ABIs, such as the x86-64 psABI, are very
> forgiving of errors.
> 
>> So the best you can do for your prospective customers is tell them that
>> you prioritise the results for correct code and help them with tools to
>> find mistakes in their ancient broken code.
> 
> Now, you can also tell them to use LTO for checks for any old
> software.
> 
> 
> Excuses are running out.

Yes, exactly.

I saw somewhere a quotation that backwards compatibility just means 
repeating the same old mistakes.  Backwards compatibility /is/ 
important, but so is trying to improve coding practices!