Re: PATCH: libffi vs. SPARC (again)

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

Jeff Sturm wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>That's just the trouble.  "Fixing" libffi would not only break this patch,
>but likely other applications that use libffi.  That sounds risky to me.
>

I was looking at this some more last night but got distracted. What I 
don't understand is that if ffi_call doesn't promote sub-word return 
values properly, why doesn't this test in ffitest fail on big-endian? It 
doesn't fail on PowerPC.

    for (sc = (signed char) -127;
     sc < (signed char) 127; /*@-type@*/ sc++ /*@=type@*/)
      {
    ul++;
    ffi_call(&cif, FFI_FN(return_sc), &rint, values);
    CHECK(rint == (int) sc);
      }

natMethod.cc definatly looks buggy in the way it misuses "struct 
jvalue", I'm just trying to figure out whether libffi is actually buggy 
as well.

regards

Bryce.