Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 16:05, H.J. Lu wrote: >> My understanding is >> >> A type that is standard-layout means that it orders and packs its >> members in a way that is compatible with C. >> >> What is the corresponding

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> The standard-layout POD is well defined: >> >>

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 15:42, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >>> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu

RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

Empty struct value is passed differently in C and C++ on Intel386 and x86-64. Different compilers use different calling conventions on the same platform: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336 The same compiler behaves different on different platforms:

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * H. J. Lu: >> >>> I am proposing to update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to specify >>> how to pass/return empty struct: >>> >>> 1.

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >>> Any syntactical array argument (at the C level) is should be passed as >>> a pointer. The language appears to change that. >> >> I didn't use aggregate so that array is excluded here. >> >>> For 2.,

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >>> I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0. >>> >>> GCC Clang >>> s0 non-emptynon-empty >>> s1 non-emptyempty >>> s2 non-emptyempty >>> s3 emptyempty >>> s4 empty

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >> I am proposing to update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to specify >> how to pass/return empty struct: >> >> 1. "collection". A collection is a structure, union or C++ class. >> 2. "empty

Re: Linux-abi group

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> >> I was referring to program properties: >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8 >> > >> > This looks more like an ELF topic to me, not

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * H. J. Lu: >> I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0. GCC Clang s0 non-emptynon-empty s1 non-empty

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't. >> >> How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD) >> type and ..."? > > That's redundant, all POD types are standard-layout types. > Apparently,

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely >>> wrote:

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 18:31, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote: >> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here: >> >> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions > > Thanks. So there's

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >> > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote: >>

Re: Linux-abi group

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent >> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface: >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi

Linux-abi group

Hi, I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface: https://groups.google.com/d/forum/linux-abi I will start to document existing Linux extensions, like STT_GNU_IFUNC. I will propose some new

Re: Linux-abi group

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * H.J. Lu [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]: >> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent >> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface: >> >>

Re: Linux-abi group

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * H. J. Lu: > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> * H. J. Lu: >>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent modification and

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 8 February 2016 at 22:40, H.J. Lu wrote: >> "empty type". An empty type is either an array of empty types or a >> class type where every member is of empty type. > > Note that the term

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 11 February 2016 at 12:40, Matthijs van Duin wrote: >> > You never define "POD for the purposes of layout", and I can only >> > interpret it as being equivalent to

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 11:53, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Since this isn't Plain Old Data (POD) for the purposes of layout, it >> isn't covered by my proposal for psABI. I leave this to C++ ABI. >

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:00, H.J. Lu wrote: >> I intentionally exclude C++ specific features in my propose. > > Yet you use a definition from the Itanium C++ ABI which itself depends > on

Re: Linux-abi group

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde wrote: > H.J, > > I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This > new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be > put under LSB

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> Any suggestions on new wording, something like >> >> 1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class. >> 2. "empty type". An empty type is a type where it and

Re: Linux-abi group

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde wrote: > On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde >> wrote: >>> >>> H.J, >>> >>> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > Do we really need an 'empty type' special case? > > The x86_64 psABI already seems clear that empty types with size <= 16 > are not passed at all. Following the algorithm in section 3.2.3, each > eightbyte is classified

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case? >>> >>> The x86_64

Re: [PATCH] D16808: [MCU] PR26438: Fix assertion failure on function returning an empty struct or union

hjl.tools added a comment. I am planning to update i386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to address how to pass and return C++ empty class after resolving: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26337 by updating C++ ABI to explicitly pass and return C++ empty class like C empty structure.

Re: [PATCH] D16808: [MCU] PR26438: Fix assertion failure on function returning an empty struct or union

hjl.tools added a subscriber: hjl.tools. hjl.tools added a comment. Why should empty structs and unions) be return in memory? I don't remember I called for it in MCU psABI. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16808 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> I thought >> >> --- >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively) >> are of class, structure, union, or array type. >> --- >> >> excluded >> >>

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Michael Matz wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> I thought

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > --- >> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively) >> > are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor >> > register should be

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote: > >> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects >> > (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type. >> > >> > doesn't cover "trivially-copyable".

[PATCH] D16469: Pass --wrap=pthread_create to linker for -fsplit-stack

hjl.tools created this revision. hjl.tools added a reviewer: rsmith. hjl.tools added a subscriber: cfe-commits. From https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg01807.html -fsplit-stack should pass --wrap=pthread_create to linker for -fsplit-stack It is needed to initialize the stack guard.

Re: [PATCH] D16469: Pass --wrap=pthread_create to linker for -fsplit-stack

hjl.tools added a comment. Can you check it in for me? Thanks. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16469 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin > wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 16:31, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> struct A { >>> static void foo (void) (); >>> static int xxx;

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin >> >

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> Here is the new definition: >> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively) >> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor >>

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote: > >> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects >> >> (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type. No >> >> memory slot nor register should be

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 19 February 2016 at 14:35, Michael Matz wrote: >> struct S { >> S() {something();} >> }; >> >> would be an empty type, and that's not what we want. > > Why not? The default constructor is

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote: >> >>> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects >>> >> (recursively) are

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 20 February 2016 at 18:55, H.J. Lu wrote: >> struct dummy0 >> { >> }; >> >> struct dummy >> { >> dummy0 d[20]; >> >> dummy0 * foo (int i); >> }; >> >> dummy0 * >> dummy::foo (int

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Matthijs van Duin wrote: > On 20 February 2016 at 20:34, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Is there a class, which meets the above definition, with a member function >> which can't be passed without a memory slot or a register? >

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 20 Feb 2016 6:54 p.m., "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Matthijs van Duin >> wrote: >> > On 20 February 2016 at 23:35, H.J. Lu

Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 20 Feb 2016 10:01 p.m., "H.J. Lu" wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Richard Smith >> wrote: >> > On 20 Feb 2016 6:54 p.m., "H.J. Lu"

[PATCH] D16779: Fix attribute((mode([word|unwind_word]))) for x32

hjl.tools created this revision. hjl.tools added reviewers: rnk, rafael. hjl.tools added a subscriber: cfe-commits. ``` typedef unsigned int gcc_word __attribute__((mode(word))); ``` and ``` typedef unsigned int gcc_unwind_word __attribute__((mode(unwind_word))); ``` define the largest unsigned

Re: [PATCH] D22045: [X86] Support of no_caller_saved_registers attribute (Clang part)

hjl.tools added a comment. no_caller_saved_registers attribute can be used with any calling conventions. https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [PATCH] D22045: [X86] Support of no_caller_saved_registers attribute (Clang part)

hjl.tools added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045#506996, @joerg wrote: > For what it is worth, this certainly seems to be misnamed. By nature, if it > doesn't preserve at least the stack pointer, there is no way to recover on > return, right? This is the best name we came up

Re: r279076 - [libclang] Add clang_getAllSkippedRanges function

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Cameron Desrochers via cfe-commits wrote: > Author: cameron314 > Date: Thu Aug 18 10:43:55 2016 > New Revision: 279076 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=279076=rev > Log: > [libclang] Add clang_getAllSkippedRanges