From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80337 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2015 09:09:16 -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 80302 invoked by uid 89); 17 Nov 2015 09:09:14 -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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:13 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3CCB8E236; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigtime.twiddle.net (ovpn-116-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.59]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAH99AGN012168; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 04:09:11 -0500 Subject: Re: documentation patch, oddities, and proposals To: Tom Tromey References: <87d1vqe3e0.fsf@tromey.com> <5639B430.2010807@redhat.com> <87si4dctqh.fsf@tromey.com> <878u5ypo1h.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: libffi-discuss From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <564AEEB5.5040402@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:00 -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: <878u5ypo1h.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On 11/16/2015 05:26 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Unlike the other ports, src/powerpc/ffitarget.h puts a bunch of flags > into the ffi_abi enum. This is fine (a bit odd maybe), but what I don't > know is whether all possible combinations of flags are valid. No, I don't believe they are. I think it's set up that way simply for convenience within the backend, testing properties rather than enumerating all of the possibilites. r~