public inbox for libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Uecker <ma.uecker@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>,
	 Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
Subject: Re: wide function pointer type
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:43:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a0299e6b3c47cddd88b24d569fca8aeb4717aeb.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bl3lgyha.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>

Am Dienstag, den 19.10.2021, 11:22 +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer:
> * Martin Uecker:
> 
> > Am Montag, den 18.10.2021, 09:36 +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer:
> > > * Martin Uecker via Libffi-discuss:
> > > 
> > > > In particular, I would be good to know whether
> > > > implementing a perfectly forwarding stub for
> > > > a variadic functions that loads the static
> > > > is possible on all architectures. I assume so,
> > > > but I am not entirely sure.
> > > 
> > > Are you asking if it is possible to consume an argument in a variadic
> > > wrapper and forward the remaining arguments to a variadic function?  The
> > > answer to that is no.
> > 
> > Yes, I assumed this does not work. The question 
> > is more whether architectures exist where the
> > existing ABI states that the static chain has to be
> > passed as a first argument (which would then need to be
> > removed when calling a regular function).
> > 
> > The implementation most architectures
> > would use is that 1) the static chain is loaded from
> > the wide pointer 2) stored in the designated register
> > or stack slot and then 3) a call is performed
> > using the same calling convention as used for
> > regular functions.
> 
> Many ABIs do not actually specify a register for the chain pointer.

Ok. The ones I looked at do, but I looked only at a few.

>   For
> GCC's nested function extension, there are no ABI concerns because the
> nested function definition and the thunk generation are always built
> from the same translation unit.  So GCC can just pick a custom calling
> convention, similar to what it does for other local, non-escaping
> functions.

Yes, but there are many other languages that make use of the
static chain.  So it would be good to have a standardized ABI
for this.

> For obvious reasons, the proposal does not achieve interoperability with
> std::function from C++, so there is no ABI concern, either.

Not directly, but you could automatically create a wide
pointer that points to a compile-time stub that calls 
a std::function.

Martin




  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-19  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-10 11:32 Martin Uecker
2021-10-17 23:35 ` Anthony Green
2021-10-18  5:33   ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-18  5:58     ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-18  7:36       ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-18  7:56         ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-19  9:22           ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-19  9:43             ` Martin Uecker [this message]
2021-10-19 10:15               ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-19 12:13                 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20  8:24                   ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-20 18:52                     ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20  9:10                   ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-20  9:21                     ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-20  9:27                       ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-20 17:27                     ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-21  9:48                       ` Florian Weimer
2021-10-10 17:01 Kaz Kylheku (libffi)
2021-10-10 17:44 ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 17:49   ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 18:05     ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 18:17       ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 18:47         ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-10 18:57           ` Daniel Colascione
2021-10-10 19:24             ` Martin Uecker
2021-10-16  8:08               ` Jarkko Hietaniemi
2021-10-16  9:35                 ` Jarkko Hietaniemi
2021-10-10 18:31   ` Kaz Kylheku (libffi)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6a0299e6b3c47cddd88b24d569fca8aeb4717aeb.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=ma.uecker@gmail.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=green@moxielogic.com \
    --cc=libffi-discuss@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).