libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

Hello -

  I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
download from here:

ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz

  I've changed my mind, and will continue using the wiki to track test
results.  Feel free to post them yourself, or send me a note and I'll
update the table.

http://moxielogic.org/wiki/libffi-3.0.14


Thanks!

AG

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

The wiki URL is really this:

  http://moxielogic.org/wiki/index.php/Libffi_3.0.14

Thanks,

AG


On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> wrote:
>
> Hello -
>
>   I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
> download from here:
>
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz
>
>   I've changed my mind, and will continue using the wiki to track test
> results.  Feel free to post them yourself, or send me a note and I'll
> update the table.
>
> http://moxielogic.org/wiki/libffi-3.0.14
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> AG

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Dominik Vogt]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 06:48:47PM -0500, Anthony Green wrote:
>   I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
> download from here:
> 
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz

s390x-ibm-linux-gnu:
--------------------
binutils-2.23.52.20130314
gcc-4.8.3 20140221 (prerelease)

# of expected passes            1819
# of unsupported tests          55

==> 0 failures

s390-ibm-linux-gnu:
-------------------
binutils-2.23.52.20130314
gcc-4.8.3 20140221 (prerelease)

# of expected passes            1819
# of unsupported tests          55

==> 0 failures
(But I had a little trouble installing the 31 bit library; see the
patch I posted in a separate message.)

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[David Fang]

>  I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
> download from here:
>
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz
>
>  I've changed my mind, and will continue using the wiki to track test
> results.  Feel free to post them yourself, or send me a note and I'll
> update the table.

Anthony,

With apple-gcc-4.0 on darwin8, Mac OS X 10.4, all tests pass!

Native configuration is powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0
                 === libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes            1819
# of unsupported tests          55

David


-- 
David Fang
http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Will Newton]

On 2 March 2014 07:48, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> wrote:
>
> Hello -
>
>   I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
> download from here:
>
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz
>
>   I've changed my mind, and will continue using the wiki to track test
> results.  Feel free to post them yourself, or send me a note and I'll
> update the table.
>
> http://moxielogic.org/wiki/libffi-3.0.14

Results for armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf (gcc 4.6.3, binutils 2.22):

                === libffi Summary ===

# of expected passes            1819
# of unsupported tests          55

-- 
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Matthias Klose]

Am 02.03.2014 00:48, schrieb Anthony Green:
> 
> Hello -
> 
>   I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
> download from here:
> 
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz

I don't see any test regressions  or test failures on armhf, arm64, i386, amd64,
kfreebsd-amd64, s390x, powerpc, sparc, ppc64el. Other builds are not yet started.

However there are some symbols changes on armhf:

- ffi_closure_SYSV_inner@Base 3.0.4
+#MISSING: 3.0.14~rc0-1# ffi_closure_SYSV_inner@Base 3.0.4

- ffi_prep_args@Base 3.0.4
+#MISSING: 3.0.14~rc0-1# ffi_prep_args@Base 3.0.4
+ ffi_prep_args_SYSV@Base 3.0.14~rc0-1
+ ffi_prep_args_VFP@Base 3.0.14~rc0-1

are these expected?

  Matthias

Re: libffi 3.0.14-rc0 needs testing!

[Alan Hourihane]

On 03/04/14 07:29, Will Newton wrote:
> On 2 March 2014 07:48, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> wrote:
>> Hello -
>>
>>    I would really appreciate some feedback on 3.0.14-rc0, which you can
>> download from here:
>>
>> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.0.14-rc0.tar.gz
>>
>>    I've changed my mind, and will continue using the wiki to track test
>> results.  Feel free to post them yourself, or send me a note and I'll
>> update the table.
>>
>> http://moxielogic.org/wiki/libffi-3.0.14
> Results for armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf (gcc 4.6.3, binutils 2.22):
>
>                  === libffi Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes            1819
> # of unsupported tests          55
>
Same here for m68k-atari-mint...

         === libffi Summary ===

# of expected passes        1819
# of unsupported tests        55

Alan.

libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

It's here: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.1-rc1.tar.gz

I've decided to bump the libffi version up to 3.1 instead of releasing a
3.0.14 version.  The main reasons are really of more concern to libffi
contributors..

1. The git repo no longer contains generated configury files.  Run
   autogen.sh to create them.

2. We're not using traditional ChangeLog files anymore.  Upon release,
   however, a ChangeLog is generated from the git logs.  All of the old
   ChangeLog files are still available in the release.

These changes really simplify life, given that my favourite mechanism
for accepting patches these days are through pull requests on github
(http://github.com/atgreen/libffi).

I'd like to thank Josh Triplett, Ryan VanderMeulen and Zachary Waldowski
in particular for all of their work on this release so far.

        Add AArch64 (ARM64) iOS support.
        Add Nios II support.
        Add m88k and DEC VAX support.
	Add support for stdcall, thiscall, and fastcall on non-Windows
	  32-bit x86 targets such as Linux.
	Various Android, MIPS N32, x86, FreeBSD and UltraSPARC IIi
	  fixes.
	Make the testsuite more robust: eliminated several spurious
	  failures.
	Archive off the manually maintained ChangeLog in favor of git
	  log.


As usual, please feel free to update the wiki here...

http://moxielogic.org/wiki/index.php/Libffi_3.1

...or just send me a note with the triplet of the system you tested
with.

I am still hoping to get a release out before April, but I'll need
plenty of help with the testing...

Thanks,

AG

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Dominik Vogt]

Host: s390x-unknown-linux-gnu
Toolchain: gcc-4.8.3 20140221 (prerelease), binutils-2.23.52.20130314
Failures: 0

Host: s390-unknown-linux-gnu
Toolchain: gcc-4.7.2 20120921, binutils-2.22.52.0.1-10.fc17 2012013
Failures: 0

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Dominik Vogt]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:23:10PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Host: s390x-unknown-linux-gnu
Ups:          ^^^^^^^
              ibm
> Toolchain: gcc-4.8.3 20140221 (prerelease), binutils-2.23.52.20130314
> Failures: 0
> 
> Host: s390-unknown-linux-gnu
             ^^^^^^^
             ibm
> Toolchain: gcc-4.7.2 20120921, binutils-2.22.52.0.1-10.fc17 2012013
> Failures: 0

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Dominik Vogt]

Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Toolchain: gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3
           binutils (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.22
Failures: 0
Comment: Ubuntu 12.04.4

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Samuli Suominen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 248 bytes --]


On 25/03/14 23:10, Anthony Green wrote:
> It's here: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.1-rc1.tar.gz
>
>

This patch is missing from the 3.1-rc1 release:

https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2013/msg00130.html

I'll attach it here too.

[-- Attachment #2: libffi-3.0.13-emutramp_pax_proc.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 911 bytes --]

2013-05-22  Magnus Granberg  <zorry@gentoo.org>

	#457194
	* src/closuer.c (emutramp_enabled_check): Check with /proc.

--- a/src/closures.c	2013-03-17 23:27:11.000000000 +0100
+++ b/src/closures.c	2013-04-29 23:26:02.279022022 +0200
@@ -181,10 +181,26 @@ static int emutramp_enabled = -1;
 static int
 emutramp_enabled_check (void)
 {
-  if (getenv ("FFI_DISABLE_EMUTRAMP") == NULL)
-    return 1;
-  else
+  char *buf = NULL;
+  size_t len = 0;
+  FILE *f;
+  int ret;
+  f = fopen ("/proc/self/status", "r");
+  if (f == NULL)
     return 0;
+  ret = 0;
+
+  while (getline (&buf, &len, f) != -1)
+    if (!strncmp (buf, "PaX:", 4))
+      {
+        char emutramp;
+        if (sscanf (buf, "%*s %*c%c", &emutramp) == 1)
+          ret = (emutramp == 'E');
+        break;
+      }
+  free (buf);
+  fclose (f);
+  return ret;
 }
 
 #define is_emutramp_enabled() (emutramp_enabled >= 0 ? emutramp_enabled \

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Samuli Suominen]

On 27/03/14 14:35, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 25/03/14 23:10, Anthony Green wrote:
>> It's here: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>>
> This patch is missing from the 3.1-rc1 release:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2013/msg00130.html
>
> I'll attach it here too.

I just sent message to Magnus, who provided the patch, to reply to the
https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2013/msg00135.html

You consider not replying to the message, a blocker for applying the patch?

- Samuli

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Samuli Suominen]

On 25/03/14 23:10, Anthony Green wrote:
> It's here: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.1-rc1.tar.gz
>
>

Another missing patch from the release:

https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2014/msg00028.html

It's an important one, at least for distributions building for multiple
different arch's (like 32bit vs. 64bit)
at the same time, important for eg. Gentoo's libffi
Otherwise flags like eg. -m32 will be skipped and
-print-multi-os-directory gives wrong value

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[James Greenhalgh]

Hi,

I'm seeing issues with libffi.call/float2.c on GCC 4.9 toolchains across
ARM, AArch64, x86_64. I guess GCC 4.9 is more aggressive in warning for
unused values:

FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O3 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Os (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for excess errors)

In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
 #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
                                       ^
../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
     CHECK(0);
     ^
output is:
In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
 #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
                                       ^
../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
     CHECK(0);
     ^

Thanks,
James

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> writes:

> On 25/03/14 23:10, Anthony Green wrote:
>> It's here: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/libffi/libffi-3.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>>
>
> Another missing patch from the release:

Thanks Samuli.  I am applying both patches.

AG


>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2014/msg00028.html
>
> It's an important one, at least for distributions building for multiple
> different arch's (like 32bit vs. 64bit)
> at the same time, important for eg. Gentoo's libffi
> Otherwise flags like eg. -m32 will be skipped and
> -print-multi-os-directory gives wrong value

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing issues with libffi.call/float2.c on GCC 4.9 toolchains across
> ARM, AArch64, x86_64. I guess GCC 4.9 is more aggressive in warning for
> unused values:

Thanks James.  I just committed a fix for this.

AG




>
> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O0 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O3 (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Os (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for excess errors)
>
> In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
>  #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
>                                        ^
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
>      CHECK(0);
>      ^
> output is:
> In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
>  #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
>                                        ^
> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
>      CHECK(0);
>      ^
>
> Thanks,
> James

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Andreas Tobler]

- powerpc64-unknown-freebsd11.0 ok
- powerpc-unknown-freebsd11.0 ok
- x86_64-unknown-freebsd11.0 ok

All with gcc48.

Thanks!

Andreas

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Matthias Klose]

Am 25.03.2014 22:10, schrieb Anthony Green:
> I am still hoping to get a release out before April, but I'll need
> plenty of help with the testing...

the good news is that the testsuite passes on every Debian and Ubuntu 
architecture without test failures. The bad news is that it is broken on x86 
(not x86_64).

running the python, ruby-ffi, cffi testsuites against the newly built libffi, it 
breaks with segfaults.

A small reproducer is (taken from https://launchpad.net/bugs/1298824):

   sudo apt-get install python3-gi gir1.2-gtk-3.0 xvfb
   xvfb-run python3 -c 'from gi.repository import GLib, Gtk; 
GLib.timeout_add_seconds(1, Gtk.main_quit, None); Gtk.main()'

It is pointed out that rebuilding the depending packages fixes the segfaults.

Signal: 11
SourcePackage: python3.4
StacktraceTop:
  g_callable_info_free_closure (callable_info=0x9e8a5b0, closure=0xb6b43008) at 
girepository/girffi.c:426
  _pygi_invoke_closure_free (data=0x9efdd50) at ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:638
  _pygi_destroy_notify_callback_closure (cif=0x9efddbc, result=0xbfaec770, 
args=0xbfaec710, data=0x0) at ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:703
  ffi_closure_SYSV_inner (closure=0xb6b43030, respp=0xbfaec77c, args=0xbfaec790) 
at ../src/x86/ffi.c:503
  ffi_closure_SYSV () at ../src/x86/sysv.S:199

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> writes:

> Am 25.03.2014 22:10, schrieb Anthony Green:
>> I am still hoping to get a release out before April, but I'll need
>> plenty of help with the testing...
>
> the good news is that the testsuite passes on every Debian and Ubuntu
> architecture without test failures. The bad news is that it is broken
> on x86 (not x86_64).
>
> running the python, ruby-ffi, cffi testsuites against the newly built
> libffi, it breaks with segfaults.
>
> A small reproducer is (taken from https://launchpad.net/bugs/1298824):
>
>   sudo apt-get install python3-gi gir1.2-gtk-3.0 xvfb
>   xvfb-run python3 -c 'from gi.repository import GLib, Gtk;
> GLib.timeout_add_seconds(1, Gtk.main_quit, None); Gtk.main()'
>
> It is pointed out that rebuilding the depending packages fixes the
> segfaults.

Ok, this suggests ABI breakage.  There were recent changes in 32-bit
Linux support that may be to blame (additional ABI support).  I can look
into this.

Thanks for the pointer!

AG





>
> Signal: 11
> SourcePackage: python3.4
> StacktraceTop:
>  g_callable_info_free_closure (callable_info=0x9e8a5b0,
> closure=0xb6b43008) at girepository/girffi.c:426
>  _pygi_invoke_closure_free (data=0x9efdd50) at ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:638
>  _pygi_destroy_notify_callback_closure (cif=0x9efddbc,
> result=0xbfaec770, args=0xbfaec710, data=0x0) at
> ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:703
>  ffi_closure_SYSV_inner (closure=0xb6b43030, respp=0xbfaec77c,
> args=0xbfaec790) at ../src/x86/ffi.c:503
>  ffi_closure_SYSV () at ../src/x86/sysv.S:199

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Anthony Green]

Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> writes:

> Ok, this suggests ABI breakage.  There were recent changes in 32-bit
> Linux support that may be to blame (additional ABI support).  I can look
> into this.

I had a look at the code changes and nothing jumped out at me.  Then I
built a 32-bit 3.0.13 libffi on x86-64 Linux with "-m32".  I did the
same thing with 3.1 from github.  Then I replaced the 3.0.14 libffi
libraries in the build tree with the 3.1 libraries and ran 'make check'.
Everything passed.  So if there is any ABI breakage, it must be very
subtle.

Unless you have any other good ideas (and I'm hoping you do), we're
going to have to reproduce this the hard way.

AG




>
>
>>
>> Signal: 11
>> SourcePackage: python3.4
>> StacktraceTop:
>>  g_callable_info_free_closure (callable_info=0x9e8a5b0,
>> closure=0xb6b43008) at girepository/girffi.c:426
>>  _pygi_invoke_closure_free (data=0x9efdd50) at ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:638
>>  _pygi_destroy_notify_callback_closure (cif=0x9efddbc,
>> result=0xbfaec770, args=0xbfaec710, data=0x0) at
>> ../../gi/pygi-closure.c:703
>>  ffi_closure_SYSV_inner (closure=0xb6b43030, respp=0xbfaec77c,
>> args=0xbfaec790) at ../src/x86/ffi.c:503
>>  ffi_closure_SYSV () at ../src/x86/sysv.S:199

ABI breakage (Was: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!)

[Anthony Green]

Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> writes:

> Am 25.03.2014 22:10, schrieb Anthony Green:
>> I am still hoping to get a release out before April, but I'll need
>> plenty of help with the testing...
>
> the good news is that the testsuite passes on every Debian and Ubuntu
> architecture without test failures. The bad news is that it is broken
> on x86 (not x86_64).

Thanks for your help today on IRC to reproduce this.  This is definitely
ABI breakage.  I've filed a bug here....

https://github.com/atgreen/libffi/issues/113

I won't have much time to think about it this weekend, but hopefully
there's a solution that lets us preserve the ABI.

AG

Re: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!

[Marcus Shawcroft]

On 28 March 2014 17:33, Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> wrote:
> James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm seeing issues with libffi.call/float2.c on GCC 4.9 toolchains across
>> ARM, AArch64, x86_64. I guess GCC 4.9 is more aggressive in warning for
>> unused values:
>
> Thanks James.  I just committed a fix for this.
>
> AG

>> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O0 (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O3 (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Os (test for excess errors)
>> FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for excess errors)
>>
>> In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
>>  #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
>>                                        ^
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
>>      CHECK(0);
>>      ^
>> output is:
>> In file included from ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:10:0:
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c: In function 'main':
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/ffitest.h:18:39: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Wunused-value]
>>  #define CHECK(x) (!(x) ? (abort(), 1) : 0)
>>                                        ^
>> ../../testsuite/libffi.call/float2.c:55:5: note: in expansion of macro 'CHECK'
>>      CHECK(0);
>>      ^


Hi Anthony, I'm still seeing these failures on master. I'm currently
looking at version:

commit 31e0d4ecff6dc2a6c75a066ee099b52a43f6ba27
Merge: 1c0e9a7 99909eb
Author: Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
Date:   Wed Apr 23 19:24:47 2014 -0400

did the fix you applied make it to master?

Cheers
/Marcus

Re: ABI breakage (Was: libffi 3.1-rc1 needs testing!)

[Matthias Klose]

Am 29.03.2014 15:24, schrieb Anthony Green:
> Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> writes:
> 
>> Am 25.03.2014 22:10, schrieb Anthony Green:
>>> I am still hoping to get a release out before April, but I'll need
>>> plenty of help with the testing...
>>
>> the good news is that the testsuite passes on every Debian and Ubuntu
>> architecture without test failures. The bad news is that it is broken
>> on x86 (not x86_64).
> 
> Thanks for your help today on IRC to reproduce this.  This is definitely
> ABI breakage.  I've filed a bug here....
> 
> https://github.com/atgreen/libffi/issues/113
> 
> I won't have much time to think about it this weekend, but hopefully
> there's a solution that lets us preserve the ABI.

it looks like this is fixed in 3.1, but the issue is still open, and I can't see
this fix mentioned in the ChangeLog-3.1, nor the git changes list.

  Matthias