Hi Alex, On 23 June 2018 at 01:28, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 22.06.18 21:28, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> On 22 June 2018 at 06:11, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 06/21/2018 09:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> On 21 June 2018 at 03:59, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 06/21/2018 04:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 June 2018 at 02:56, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 June 2018 at 08:46, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 06/18/2018 04:08 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There appears to be a bug [1] in gcc when using varargs with this >>>>>>>>>> attribute. Disable it for sandbox so that functions which use that >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> work correctly, such as install_multiple_protocol_interfaces(). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See my patch instead please. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK I see it now. Do you know what gcc fixes this problem? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bug you found was really just a gcc bug that hit early gcc6 >>>>>>> versions. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> doubt you're running into it :). >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, so in fact gcc does not support varargs problems with the ms_abi? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gcc needs to know whether varargs are sysv varargs or ms varargs. And it >>>>> differentiates between the two with different variable types for va_list. >>>>> >>>> Have you seen the builtin_va_list, etc. >>> >>> >>> I think this sentence is missing content? >> >> I thought that builtin_va_list and friends would work regardless of >> the calling standard being used. But it looks (from your patch) like >> you have to explicitly use __builtin_ms_va_list. Is that right? > > I'm fairly sure builtin_va_list is just gcc's way of mapping the sysv > va_list, but I'm not 100% sure. I can double check with our compiler > people next week.
OK looking forward to hearing. I'm not sure when the builtin came in, but if it has been around for a while, and it supports both calling standards, then it would be nice to use it. > > Either way, I think this patch is good either way. For starters it's not > gcc specific because it uses the normal va_args in the "normal" case. > Also, it's not ambiguous. IMHO things are quite clear when reading the > code if we explicitly differentiate between sysv and ms_abi va_args. I'm OK with it since it gets us going. Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
