From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10426 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2015 14:24:07 -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 9292 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2015 14:24:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_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; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:24:05 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059F919F202; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigtime.twiddle.net (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA4EO00P022416; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:24:02 -0500 Subject: Re: documentation patch, oddities, and proposals To: Tom Tromey References: <87d1vqe3e0.fsf@tromey.com> <5639B430.2010807@redhat.com> <87r3k526ei.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: libffi-discuss From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <563A14FE.4030004@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r3k526ei.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On 11/04/2015 03:20 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>> I wasn't sure -- is this needed in some way for the closure API as >>> well? If so, and someone can explain where (that is, arguments, >>> return values, or both), I will write a documentation patch. > > rth> As far as I can tell it's just historical, and now for api > rth> compatability with earlier libffi. But perhaps Anthony remembers > rth> more. > > I also didn't check to see how the "struct { char x; }" case is > handled. Does that need ffi_arg? No, it should not. Just the integral types. r~