From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 782 invoked by alias); 18 May 2009 15:06:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 716 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2009 15:06:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f176.google.com) (209.85.218.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:06:31 +0000 Received: by bwz24 with SMTP id 24so3450040bwz.8 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.59.18 with SMTP id j18mr6790440bkh.206.1242659187771; Mon, 18 May 2009 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f31sm7370761fkf.32.2009.05.18.08.06.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 May 2009 08:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A117C21.4050505@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:06:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley CC: Dave Korn , Timothy Wall , NightStrike , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] win64 support for libffi (2/2) References: <635C3243-B89E-460E-9C0F-209308D89729@dev.java.net> <4A109F74.6060108@gmail.com> <4DB6E56B-C18E-4021-84BD-EAE566EC0A65@dev.java.net> <4A112C2D.8060008@redhat.com> <4A11776F.5010003@gmail.com> <4A1177C8.4050602@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A1177C8.4050602@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00071.txt.bz2 Andrew Haley wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> The libffi ABI has changed? Are you sure? >> No, I'm not clear, I'm repeating something I was told second-hand: >> >> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2009-02/msg00051.html >> >> Maybe I just meant that the API has changed, not the ABI? > > Neither have changed AFAIAA. There are some updates and fixes in gcc > that are not yet in upstream libffi. Not even a minor version? That's odd. Perhaps something has gone amiss in the .X.Y.SO -> -X.DLL translation employed by cygwin libtool, I'll have to dig further. cheers, DaveK