From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13629 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2013 09:29:07 -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 13619 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2013 09:29:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:29:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAP9Stfm013545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:28:55 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-156.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.156]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAP9Srsj027938; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 04:28:54 -0500 Message-ID: <52931854.6080007@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131028 Thunderbird/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hogan, D. (GE Power & Water)" CC: "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: RFC: variadic closures in x86/x86_64 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On 11/25/2013 02:45 AM, Hogan, D. (GE Power & Water) wrote: > I'm requesting feedback on an implementation of variadic closures in > libffi. It currently supports x86 and x86_64. This change allows for > FMI logging callbacks through JNA in the JFMI[1] and Ptolemy II[2] > projects. The libffi changes are in a github branch[3]. Why is this necessary? I thought that the variadic calling conventions on x86 were the same as the non-variadic ones. Andrew.