From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27466 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2015 10:36:33 -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 27454 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jan 2015 10:36:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: swip.net Received: from mailfe05.swip.net (HELO swip.net) (212.247.154.129) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:36:31 +0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received: from [77.244.254.229] (account cxu-bx4-3f4@tele2.se HELO mail) by mailfe05.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPSA id 557399288 for libffi-discuss@sourceware.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:36:28 +0100 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe05.swip.net; client-ip=77.244.254.229; envelope-from=u-xsnf@aetey.se Received: (qmail 16690 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2015 10:35:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aetey.se) (eh1ba719@127.0.0.1) by mail with ESMTPA; 3 Jan 2015 10:35:02 -0000 Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:36:00 -0000 From: u-xsnf@aetey.se To: Richard Henderson Cc: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: showstopper bug on x86 (Re: libffi does not follow proper ABI on ia32) Message-ID: <20150103103615.GR14316@example.net> References: <20141222193538.GW14316@example.net> <20141224135825.GF14316@example.net> <549AEA51.2000500@redhat.com> <54A4207F.9090904@redhat.com> <20150102185653.GO14316@example.net> <54A719A6.9050008@redhat.com> <20150103101457.GP14316@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150103101457.GP14316@example.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:14:57AM +0100, u-xsnf@aetey.se wrote: > If the internal use of fastcall is desirable in certain cases, then > a compile time choice between fastcall and cdecl would alleviate the > problem and make one-compiler-shops with pcc (or even something else > like tcc?) happy. Actually a bad example as tcc presumably supports fastcall but there are (and/or will be) other compilers anyway. Rune