From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21315 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2017 05:18:38 -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 21303 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2017 05:18:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=speculation X-HELO: gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (HELO gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com) (67.222.38.55) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:18:36 +0000 Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB0F1404DC for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:18:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from box522.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.122]) by cmgw2 with id RhJX1w00N2f2jeq01hJa8q; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:18:35 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=dZfw5Tfe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=GsOEXm/OWkKvwdLVJsfwcA==:117 a=GsOEXm/OWkKvwdLVJsfwcA==:17 a=02M-m0pO-4AA:10 a=4_4KAXEiAAAA:8 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=Te0by7FwGYzPKm8RH48A:9 a=2dBW64JbcpvAzUZBiPf5:22 Received: from 71-218-90-63.hlrn.qwest.net ([71.218.90.63]:54566 helo=bapiya) by box522.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1e7E5H-000BCL-C4; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:18:31 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Bruno Haible Cc: "Kaz Kylheku \(libffi\)" <382-725-6798@kylheku.com>, libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: small return types References: <2437301.0N14NqkuRT@omega> <5182570.xx5xnuqjYz@omega> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5182570.xx5xnuqjYz@omega> (Bruno Haible's message of "Sun, 22 Oct 2017 22:33:04 +0200") Message-ID: <87po9brejj.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BWhitelist: no X-Exim-ID: 1e7E5H-000BCL-C4 X-Source-Sender: 71-218-90-63.hlrn.qwest.net (bapiya) [71.218.90.63]:54566 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 3 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTIyLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ== X-Local-Domain: yes X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible writes: Bruno> Changing the subject, since we're talking about Bruno> https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/361 Bruno> https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/362 Bruno> https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/368 Bruno> https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/369 >> Naively written code will appear to work fine on little endian 64 bit, Bruno> No, the bug https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/368 also affect Bruno> some little-endian platforms. It sounds this one is a different bug. I haven't looked at your test suite yet, so no speculation from me about what it might be. For the others, I think we should close them; or perhaps close all but one of them and change the last one into a libffi 4 wish-list bug. Kaz's analysis here is, I believe, correct -- libffi is it the way it is, and the tests should be changed. Changing libffi is probably a good idea, but it will also break the current users, so it would be best to roll this sort of change up with other desirable breaking changes. And, as you can probably see, there isn't a huge amount of work going on in libffi, so it's unclear to me at least whether this could be accomplished for the existing targets. Tom