From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4739 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2015 22:30:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 4718 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2015 22:30:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: limerock02.mail.cornell.edu Received: from limerock02.mail.cornell.edu (HELO limerock02.mail.cornell.edu) (128.84.13.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:30:26 +0000 X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already. Received: from authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (granite4.serverfarm.cornell.edu [10.16.197.9]) by limerock02.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4_cu) with ESMTP id t1JMUORr012615 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:30:24 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (cpe-67-249-176-138.twcny.res.rr.com [67.249.176.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id t1JMUNag030971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:30:24 -0500 Message-ID: <54E66412.4070809@cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:30:00 -0000 From: Ken Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: ffcall References: <54E4DEC2.2060400@cornell.edu> <1424287689.3460.19.camel@cygwin.com> <20150218200825.GB22849@calimero.vinschen.de> <54E51500.8070200@cornell.edu> <20150219093852.GA4783@calimero.vinschen.de> <54E6048C.6060605@x-ray.at> <54E61348.9080104@cornell.edu> <54E61B05.2050109@cornell.edu> <54E63D93.7070000@x-ray.at> In-Reply-To: <54E63D93.7070000@x-ray.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On 2/19/2015 2:46 PM, Reini Urban wrote: > On 02/19/2015 06:19 PM, Ken Brown wrote: >> On 2/19/2015 11:46 AM, Ken Brown wrote: >>> On 2/19/2015 10:43 AM, Reini Urban wrote: >>>> On 02/19/2015 10:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> On Feb 18 17:41, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>> Help with basic x86_64 assembler is ok, I did it for Cygwin with help >>>>> from Kai Tietz. >>>>> >>>>> The main difference to Linux you have to look out for is the different >>>>> calling convention and how the registers are used: >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#Microsoft_x64_calling_convention >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the job is typically to rearrange the register usage and to >>>>> account for the only four registers used for the first arguments >>>>> to a function, rather than the 6 registers in the SYSV ABI. >>>>>> I might give it a try at some point, but I'm not highly motivated >>>>>> unless >>>>>> someone who really cares about clisp steps forward to help. I'll >>>>>> concentrate first on seeing if I can get some 64-bit version of >>>>>> clisp built >>>>>> without ffcall. >>>> Should be doable without. >>> >>> Yes, it seems to be. So far I've built and am testing a version with no >>> non-default modules, and with the default regexp module disabled. I had >>> to do the latter because of the gcc problem I encountered while trying >>> to compile regexi.c: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64939 >>> >>> The same sort of error occurs with several other modules. > Huh, that's a good one! Something for Kai. > >> I tried to test my build by using it to build xindy. It appeared to > work, as far as it went, but it didn't go too far because xindy requires > the regexp module. So I think I'm stuck until the gcc problem is resolved. >> >> I don't whether it's worth uploading my crippled clisp at this point >> to let it get some testing. Reini, is clisp without regexp at all >> useful? > > Usually clisp users don't need the regexp module, they usually have > better matchers. In that case, I think I'll go ahead and release what I have and see if it's of use to anyone. Ken