This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: [PATCH] win64 support for libffi (2/2)
Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> NightStrike wrote:
>>>>> When are you planning to do this? I want to time some other changes
>>>>> in my personal repo with this change.
>>>> Today, if I have time, otherwise next week.
>>> I have an outstanding patch to libffi/src/x86/win32.S
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2009-q2/msg00084.html
>> Please commit this.
>
> Two things:
>
> a) Tests not quite finished yet, but fixed lots of FAILs. Only other change:
>
> -FAIL: Thread_Wait_2 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test
> -FAIL: Thread_Wait_Interrupt output - source compiled test
> +FAIL: Thread_Interrupt -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test
> +FAIL: Thread_Wait_2 output - source compiled test
> +FAIL: Thread_Wait_Interrupt -O3 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test
>
> ... which I think is probably noise. The Process_N tests all hang, I think
> there is a bug somewhere in the underlying cygwin pthread support (there is
> some ever-present noise in libstdc++ tests relating to mutexes as well, which
> supports this theory).
OK.
> b) Just the libffi, or both parts? I haven't tested the libjava
> runtimeInitialized change separately.
Doesn't this change fix the early failure in throwing an exception?
If not, please don't check it in.
>>> There is currently one difference between our win32.S and upstream libffi
>>> win32.S, where upstream adds a new entrypoint, _ffi_closure_STDCALL.
>>>
>>> Would it help if I added that function and EH annotations for it to my patch?
>> Yes. Consider it pre-approved.
>
> Thanks, under way. I think I have to duplicate out the function tail-end
> code that the current upstream version shares with _ffi_closure_SYSV (from
> .Lcls_return_result on) because as far as I've been able to figure out so far,
> we can't represent shared/overlapping ranges like this in FDEs. It's not a
> huge amount of code, but if you do happen to know a way to do it, please send
> me a pointer, or confirm that it's still OK with the code duplication.
Duplication is fine.
Andrew.