Re: [LIBFFI] Re: Re: [PATCH] Add support for PaX enable kernels (MPROTECT)

[Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com>]

On 21/02/2013 19:35, Anthony Green wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>   Gcc-patches: Assuming AG approves, can we commit this without waiting for an
>> upstream libffi release and doing a full merge?  Currently GCC HEAD won't
>> build libffi (and hence libjava) without it.
> 
> This patch looks fine, thanks.  I don't plan to merge back into GCC
> for at least a week or two, so I think you should commit it to the GCC
> tree independently.
> 
> This means that 3.0.12 is broken for Cygwin.  Are you able to produce
> test results once you apply this change?  I should probably issue a
> quick 3.0.13 if the results are decent.

  Yes, the tests run fine (using libffi git HEAD from yesterday):

> Native configuration is i686-pc-cygwin
> 
>                 === libffi tests ===
> 
> 
> Running target unix
> FAIL: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c compilation failed to produce executable
> 
> FAIL: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c compilation failed to produce executable
> 
> FAIL: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c compilation failed to produce executable
> 
> FAIL: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c compilation failed to produce executable
> 
> FAIL: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c (test for excess errors)
> WARNING: libffi.call/closure_thiscall.c compilation failed to produce executable
> 
> 
>                 === libffi Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            1924
> # of unexpected failures        5

  I was using gcc-4.5.3, which is from before thiscall support was added, so
those compile failures are unremarkable and expected.  Given that, we have a
clean sweep.

    cheers,
      DaveK