Re: PATCH: Fix 64-bit libffi testsuite on Solaris 10+ (PR libffi/40700)

[Andreas Tobler <andreast-list at fgznet dot ch>]

On 10.12.09 10:52, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rainer Orth wrote:
> > As described in the PR, many 64-bit libffi testcases started to fail on
> > Solaris 10 and 11 between 20090612 and 20090622.  Core dump logging
> > revealed the cause:
> >
> > Nov 27 14:45:24 cumaru genunix: [ID 269049 kern.notice] NOTICE: cls_ushort.exe[21514] attempt to execute non-executable data at 0x600fd0 by uid 2110
> >
> > I could track this to the following patch:
> >
> > 2009-06-11  Timothy Wall<twall@users.sf.net>
> > [...]
> >          * testsuite/libffi.call/closure_fn0.c,
> > [...]
> >          testsuite/libffi.special/unwindtest.cc: use ffi_closure_alloc instead
> >          of checking for MMAP.  Use intptr_t instead of long casts.
> >
> > While before the patch, the testsuite would have used allocate_mmap to
> > allocate ffi_closure's, afterwards src/closures.c (ffi_closure_alloc)
> > without FFI_MMAP_EXEC_WRIT defined would simply use malloc instead,
> > leading to the observed failure.
> >
> > So the fix is obvious: just define FFI_MMAP_EXEC_WRIT for 64-bit
> > Solaris/x86.  The following patch does just that and allows the libffi
> > testsuite to complete almost successfully (the remaining failures are
> > unrelated) for both 32 and 64 bit on i386-pc-solaris2.11.
> >
> > Ok for mainline?
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> Cc'd to libffi upstream.

I'm late.

Anyway, there are other architectures which do have the same issue. 
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, apple-darwin10. We 'solved' this with adding the 
snippet below in the configure.ac (from the libffi sources, not in the 
gcc repo yet.):

case "$target" in
    *-apple-darwin10* | *-*-freebsd* | *-*-openbsd*)
        AC_DEFINE(FFI_MMAP_EXEC_WRIT, 1,
                  [Cannot use malloc on this target, so, we revert to
                   alternative means])
    ;;


So, my question, shall we move the three remaining OS variants into the 
closures.c file. Or should we move the solaris/x86 part from the 
closures.c file into the configure.ac part?

Both are ok with me, but I think we should have a consistency in this area.

Andreas