This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] Fix FFI return type for closures in the java interpreter
- From: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Cc: "java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org' (gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org)" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "per at bothner dot com" <per at bothner dot com>, "aph at redhat dot com" <aph at redhat dot com>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:20:06 +0000
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix FFI return type for closures in the java interpreter
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E45FD9F@HHMAIL01.hh.imgtec.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B023537E46241B@HHMAIL01.hh.imgtec.org> <email@example.com>
Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> writes:
> Matthew> I'm not sure this will matter if the only arch is x86 as
> Matthew> ffi_arg will be 32-bit anyway there.
> Aha, right. Thanks for looking.
> Matthew> There would need to be a
> Matthew> 64bit arch using the raw api. I don't really understand what
> Matthew> the raw api is, the references to it in the code seemed
> Matthew> cryptic.
> IIRC it's to exploit the x86 calling convention to make ffi calls a bit
> more efficient for libgcj.
Sorry for the long delay...
I have tested this now with -m32 multilib on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and there
are no regressions.
> Matthew> libjava/
> Matthew> * interpret-run.cc: Use ffi_arg for FFI integer return types.
> Matthew> libjava/testsuite/
> Matthew> * libjava.jar/arraysort.java: New file.
> Matthew> * libjava.jar/arraysort.jar: New file.
> Matthew> * libjava.jar/arraysort.out: New file.
> Matthew> * libjava.jar/arraysort.xfail: New file.
> This is ok.
> Could you check? I think a -m32 build ought to show it. Maybe your
> x86-64 build already did this?
Still OK to commit?