Re: PATCH: libffi vs. SPARC (again)

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

>Jeff> <sigh> I've already spent more time on this than I could afford
>Jeff> right now.  I've been patching my local solaris builds for the
>Jeff> last six months.  Nobody else has fixed it yet.  If nothing
>Jeff> breaks, can we please go with this, at least for 3.1?
>
>I'm inclined to agree.  Unless Bryce or Anthony object in the next day
>or so, please check in your patch.
>
>Could you make a quick patch for the libffi documentation explaining
>this point?  If not tell me and I'll try to do it.
>

I'll let Anthony make the final call here, but I think that this is a 
bug with libffi and should be fixed there. libffi should insulate us 
from ABI details like endian-ness. The big problem with this patch is 
that it then makes the bug impossible to fix in libffi unless we 
conditionalize the patch by target, since, I think, "fixing" a libffi 
port would break it again. I'd prefer to fix the libffi ports that we 
can test, and put a note in the libffi documentation warning about the 
others.

regards

Bryce.