From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7774 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2014 10:24:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 7647 invoked by uid 89); 29 Sep 2014 10:24:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.109) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:24:49 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:24:46 +0100 Received: from d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.13) by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.143) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:24:43 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA70517D8066 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:26:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.251]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s8TAOhQG39780534 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:24:43 GMT Received: from d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s8TAOha6032593 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:24:43 -0600 Received: from bl3ahm9f.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-217.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.217]) by d06av10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id s8TAOhxL032557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:24:43 -0600 Received: from dvogt by bl3ahm9f.de.ibm.com with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XYY8I-0007FG-Hh; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:24:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:24:00 -0000 From: Dominik Vogt To: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Complex type support (FFI_TYPE_COMPLEX) Message-ID: <20140929102442.GA24360@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vogt@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140722092734.GA23937@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y4teh9c6.fsf@moxielogic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y4teh9c6.fsf@moxielogic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14092910-2966-0000-0000-00000149232F X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 06:31:21AM -0400, Anthony Green wrote: > I'm not all that familiar with how GCC handles complex types on other > architectures, but hopefully they are as straight forward as on s390. I think the real issue here is the Abi. On x86, complex types seem to be treated exactly like structs with two elements, but on s390[x] that is not the case (structs of size 8 are passed in a register, but complex types are always passed on the stack). Other than that, complex types are hopefully treated the same inside gcc. > It would be nice if the complex test cases turned into expected failures > for platforms that don't have the back end support. Sorry for the late reply, but I've had a cold. Have you already resolved this issue in that patch here? Only run the complex type tests on supported platforms. If there's something left to do, I can look into it now. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany