From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libffi-discuss-return-2161-listarch-libffi-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16128 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2015 08:51:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libffi-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libffi-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 16111 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2015 08:51:13 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:51:12 +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 t198p6s1019841	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL);	Mon, 9 Feb 2015 03:51:06 -0500
Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn-113-114.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.114])	by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t198p5QG012952;	Mon, 9 Feb 2015 03:51:05 -0500
Message-ID: <54D874F8.9040004@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:51:00 -0000
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,        "libffi-discuss@sourceware.org" <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement libffi for AARCH64:ILP32
References: <CA+=Sn1m6s93Gvuv7OvCGciYfbLWdmQYkqm8m7ruQn7DL2pXZ3w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+=Sn1m6s93Gvuv7OvCGciYfbLWdmQYkqm8m7ruQn7DL2pXZ3w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2

On 09/02/15 08:40, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> For ILP32, we need to use long long types for ffi_arg and ffi_sarg.
> And then we need to fix up the closure code to load cif, fn, and
> user_data by 32bit instead of 64bits as they are stored as pointers in
> C code.

Would it make more sense to use int64_t rather than long long?

Andrew.