------- Comment #1 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-22 14:27 ------- Opps. Looks like the proposed patch is incomplete.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00428.html I will be testing... Index: ffi_darwin.c =================================================================== --- ffi_darwin.c (revision 117142) +++ ffi_darwin.c (working copy) @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ /* 'next_arg' grows up as we put parameters in it. */ - unsigned *next_arg = stack + 6; /* 6 reserved positions. */ + unsigned long *next_arg = stack + 6; /* 6 reserved positions. */ int i = ecif->cif->nargs; double double_tmp; @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ Return values are referenced by r3, so r4 is the first parameter. */ if (flags & FLAG_RETVAL_REFERENCE) - *next_arg++ = (unsigned)(char *)ecif->rvalue; + *next_arg++ = (unsigned long)(char *)ecif->rvalue; /* Now for the arguments. */ for (; ,,,instead. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29181
