This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libffi package
Jeff Sturm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I didn't see an answer to this question, so I'll give it a shot. Though I
> don't speak for libffi maintainers:
Thanks anyway. Is there a magic spell I need to get a comment from the
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Are there chances that patches to libffi to compile it with the
>> Microsoft compiler for Windows be accepted? Patches for windows
>> specific features?
> I don't know. The upstream package might, but as this libffi is part of
> GCC there is little reason it seems to support other compilers.
What do you mean by 'upstream package'? My english (or jargon, maybe)
isn't able to understand this...
Ok, I understand that the GCC maintainers are not too interested in
adding support for other compilers or platforms, OTOH it seems there are
still 'standalone' distributions of libffi (or libffi2), for debian for
example. What's the difference between libffi and libffi2?
How are other people installing libffi, what should I tell my users how
to install it (assuming there are no .rpm or other packages)? And what
should I get to start porting to MSVC - CVS head seems broken,
gcc_release_3_3_2 seems to work...
> What is preventing MSVC from compiling libffi? Inline asm perhaps?
>> Are there any ideas to provide libffi as a standalone package, separate
>> from GCC, again? Would there by anything I could help to make this
> Have you seen the note atop http://sources.redhat.com/libffi/? I suggest
> you contact Anthony Green.
Have done this already and didn't get an answer. Well, that was half a
year ago or so, is he more active now? The idea was to reach the
current developers/maintainers on this list.
>> What about the docs? They haven't changed in a few years (that's my
>> impression at least).
> I'm sure documentation patches would be welcome.
If I'll decide to switch to libffi for the MSVC version of my package, I
will most certainly submit them - once I understand the undocumented stuff.
>> And finally (IANAL): is the redhat license still the one which applies
>> to libffi?
> Last I heard, Anthony was trying to reassign the copyright of libffi to
> the FSF. For now the Red Hat license is in effect.