This is the mail archive of the
java-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL
- From: "matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: java-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:11:49 +0000
- Subject: [Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-71917-8172@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Matthew Fortune <matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Fortune <matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com> ---
Hi Rainer,
Sorry for the bugs, I am however tempted to say this will turn out to be a
libffi bug. You have described the same failure mode as I fixed for MIPS but
libjava is now following the ffi return type rules so my assumption is that it
is sparc ffi that is not. I've had a quick read of sparc ffi code and it seems
there is a chance that integer return types are not being promoted to word
size. I.e. following the ffi rule that integers smaller than a word are
returned as type ffi_arg.
Do you know if the two new testcases fail if built against a gij built without
my changes to java/lang/reflect/natVMProxy.cc and interpret-run.cc? I suspect
they may actually pass before but for the wrong reasons.
Does 64-bit sparc have problems with other codebases using ffi? libguile,
python being some notable examples?
Matthew