From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23484 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2015 22:20:33 -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 23473 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jan 2015 22:20:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham 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; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 22:20:31 +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 t02MKPfK025241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Jan 2015 17:20:26 -0500 Received: from pike.twiddle.home (vpn-50-235.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.50.235]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t02MKOHe027366; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 17:20:24 -0500 Message-ID: <54A719A6.9050008@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 22:20:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: u-xsnf@aetey.se CC: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: showstopper bug on x86 (Re: libffi does not follow proper ABI on ia32) References: <20141222193538.GW14316@example.net> <20141224135825.GF14316@example.net> <549AEA51.2000500@redhat.com> <54A4207F.9090904@redhat.com> <20150102185653.GO14316@example.net> In-Reply-To: <20150102185653.GO14316@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On 01/02/2015 10:56 AM, u-xsnf@aetey.se wrote: > Looking at the source I wonder if this has to do with the reliance > on the fastcall attribute, which pcc does not support. Ah, well, that could well be. Since fastcall is a standard Windows calling convention, I sort of assume every decent compiler supports it. In which case I'm going to suggest not building libffi with pcc. An executable built with pcc should work with a library built with gcc or clang. r~