[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-24 10:22 ---
Fixed at r.150042.


-- 

davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-24 10:12 ---
Subject: Bug 40807

Author: davek
Date: Fri Jul 24 10:12:16 2009
New Revision: 150042

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=150042
Log:
PR libffi/40807
* src/x86/ffi.c (ffi_prep_cif_machdep): Also use sign/zero-extending
return types for X86_WIN32.
* src/x86/win32.S (_ffi_call_SYSV): Handle omitted return types.
(_ffi_call_STDCALL, _ffi_closure_SYSV, _ffi_closure_raw_SYSV,
_ffi_closure_STDCALL): Likewise.

* src/closures.c (is_selinux_enabled): Define to const 0 for Cygwin.
(dlmmap, dlmunmap): Also use these functions on Cygwin.


Modified:
trunk/libffi/ChangeLog
trunk/libffi/src/closures.c
trunk/libffi/src/x86/ffi.c
trunk/libffi/src/x86/win32.S


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-20 14:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=18231)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18231&action=view)
final spin

Turns out that '#' makes a bad choice of comment introducer if the next word is
"if" and you're running your .S file through the C preprocessor!


-- 

davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #18230|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-20 14:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=18230)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18230&action=view)
Updated patch

Now with a trivial tweak to fix a missing-prototype warning.


-- 

davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #18229|0   |1
is obsolete||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-20 14:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=18229)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18229&action=view)
proposed fix

  This patch fixes all the significant FAILs currently extant in the libffi
testsuite.

=== libffi Summary ===

# of expected passes1642
# of unexpected failures2
# of expected failures  10

  The remaining two FAILs I see:

FAIL: libffi.call/cls_align_pointer.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libffi.call/huge_struct.c (test for excess errors)

... are format string warnings of less importance.

I have to go AFK for a bit now so I won't get to submit this until tomorrow
sometime.  Just in case I get hit by a meteorite, here it is for the record.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[davek at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-20 01:27 ---
Taking assignment.


-- 

davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |davek at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-07-20 01:27:55
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807

[Bug libffi/40807] [4.5 Regression] : libffi.call/return_sc.c

[dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com  2009-07-19 
17:50 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>   I notice that ffi_call_SYSV has to handle all the return types, but not
> ffi_closure_SYSV nor ffi_closure_raw_SYSV.  Does anyone know why that is?

  To answer my own question: it appears to be an omission, and these functions
should also handle all return types.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40807