Re: [patch] libffi darwin x86-32bit, fix return_sc testcase.

[Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch>]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> 
>  > We obviously disagree about what the ABI specifies.  r126480 made
>  > the C/C++ frontend behavior the same as other frontends behavior
>  > (for example Fortran behavior, which I explicitly checked).  As GCC
>  > supports both promoting function return values or not in the
>  > backends and the x86 backend explicitly does _not_ enable this
>  > promotion it agrees with my reading of the ABI.
> 
> But the ABI isn't in doubt: it is required to 
> 
>> Functions pass all integer-valued arguments as words, expanding or
>> padding signed or unsigned bytes and halfwords as needed'
> 
> and this surely applies to return values as well as arguments passed
> to functions.  It is utterly perverse to assume that return values are
> treated differently from arguments passed to functions.  So if the
> back end isn't promoting return values then the back end is wrong.

I'm not in the position to judge about this, I can only read the ABI and 
I have to give my vote to aph, at least from what _I_ understand.
Maybe my understanding lacks some basic issues, in this case I'd like to 
be advised to understand it right. But until then, I suppose this patch 
is hold on ice, right?
This blocks my further work and I fear this issue might take some moons 
to be resolved/clarified.

Who has the ability to clarify this issue? Do we need to expand the 
to/cc list to the _right_ people? Who are the right people?

I'd like to have this clarified, even if I can't help that much in 
clarifying....

Thanks,
Andreas