From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22070 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2015 12:46:36 -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 22060 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jan 2015 12:46:35 -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 mailfe09.swip.net (HELO swip.net) (212.247.155.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:46:33 +0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received: from [77.247.181.163] (account cxu-bx4-3f4@tele2.se HELO mail) by mailfe09.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPSA id 389581298 for libffi-discuss@sourceware.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:46:29 +0100 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe09.swip.net; client-ip=77.247.181.163; envelope-from=u-xsnf@aetey.se Received: (qmail 29383 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2015 12:44:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aetey.se) (eh1ba719@127.0.0.1) by mail with ESMTPA; 6 Jan 2015 12:44:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:46:00 -0000 From: u-xsnf@aetey.se To: Richard Henderson Cc: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: libffi vs pcc (was: showstopper bug on x86 / libffi does not follow proper ABI on ia32) Message-ID: <20150106124609.GH14316@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> <54AB036B.4030104@redhat.com> <20150106102102.GF14316@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106102102.GF14316@example.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:21:02AM +0100, u-xsnf@aetey.se wrote: > 306 of the still failing tests try to test FASTCALL and THISCALL which > is not expected to pass. At least some of the remaining 210 ones quite > probably depend on a bug in pcc which was independently discovered this > week and fixed > Moreover, at about the same time pcc seems to have got support for fastcall (!) > I am going to make the next round with the newest pcc and see how many > test failures remain. The fastcall support in pcc is not yet complete. I was able to compile libffi both with HAVE_FASTCALL=0 and HAVE_FASTCALL=1 and it looks mostly working in both cases (nice!). Yet many tests are still failing, both related and unrelated to fastcall - I'll take this up on the pcc list. Rune