From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dj@redhat.com>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com
 (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1057A382FE60
 for <libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 23:16:29 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1057A382FE60
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
 [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-593-4rgDGRA1PsaLOuw6svBqGg-1; Tue, 31 May 2022 19:16:26 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 4rgDGRA1PsaLOuw6svBqGg-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com
 [10.11.54.4])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8355880A0AD;
 Tue, 31 May 2022 23:16:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-112-4.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.4])
 by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D56D2026D64;
 Tue, 31 May 2022 23:16:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by greed.delorie.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 24VNGPc13876659;
 Tue, 31 May 2022 19:16:25 -0400
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
Cc: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Change in libffi behaviour -- large struct args
In-Reply-To: <CACxje5-nDE_2zvwhjqri-0jq6v8KjqEt2nvvg-a1X68yPKtAGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 19:16:25 -0400
Message-ID: <xnpmjtqomu.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
 DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libffi-discuss mailing list <libffi-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libffi-discuss>,
 <mailto:libffi-discuss-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libffi-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:libffi-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libffi-discuss-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libffi-discuss>,
 <mailto:libffi-discuss-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 23:16:30 -0000

Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> writes:
>> While this is technically an ABI change, if the "old" ABI never worked,
>> I can't see how this would break anything by changing.
>
> I wouldn't even call this an ABI change.   The new implementation will
> be ABI compatible.  This is really a bug fix.   In fact, some ports
> have always done the right thing.

Right, I was using ABI to mean "the ABI of the target we're composing a
foreign call for", not the call ABI of the libffi library.

If we could not correctly call functions that took large structures, and
now we can, we have changed the target ABI but shouldn't break any
existing software that worked correctly before.

I agree it's worth fixing, we just must be careful we actually *don't*
break any currently-working program.