From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2514 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2014 13:17:19 -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 2424 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2014 13:17:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:17:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sA6DHBhC011584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:17:11 -0500 Received: from pike.twiddle.home (vpn1-7-101.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.101]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sA6DH7p9020415; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:17:08 -0500 Message-ID: <545B74D1.4000403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:17:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lynn A. Boger" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libffi-discuss@sourceware.org, gofrontend-dev@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain References: <1412973773-3942-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <545A97BA.3030507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <545B1C44.3000306@redhat.com> <20141106124838.GJ30857@bubble.grove.modra.org> <545B7331.7040500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <545B7331.7040500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 On 11/06/2014 02:10 PM, Lynn A. Boger wrote: > Aren't there cases where the static chain register is needed? How does that > work if it could be trashed on a plt call? No. At the moment the static chain is only used for nested functions, which are local to the translation unit, and are therefore locally bound, and therefore never go through the plt. r~