This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libffi merge
Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> x86 changes: merge from libffi -> gcc.
>> Timothy Wall, please check this one.
> I am not he, but ...
>> --- /home/aph/gcc/trunk/libffi/src/x86/win32.S 2009-06-04 15:43:59.000000000 +0100
>> +++ ./src/x86/win32.S 2009-06-04 15:30:26.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -264,6 +264,22 @@
>> + .globl _ffi_closure_STDCALL
>> + pushl %ebp
>> + movl %esp, %ebp
>> + subl $40, %esp
>> + leal -24(%ebp), %edx
>> + movl %edx, -12(%ebp) /* resp */
>> + leal 12(%ebp), %edx /* account for stub return address on stack */
>> + movl %edx, 4(%esp) /* args */
>> + leal -12(%ebp), %edx
>> + movl %edx, (%esp) /* &resp */
>> + call _ffi_closure_SYSV_inner
>> + movl -12(%ebp), %ecx
>> + jmp .Lcls_return_result
> I figured we couldn't share this code, owing to the need to have
> discontiguous FDEs in the debug info. Looks like you effectively have the
> inverse of my last patch in there along with some of the libffi changes.
>> - /* It would be nice to just share this code with the
>> - duplicate sequence in _ffi_closure_SYSV, if only
>> - there were some way to represent that in the EH info. */
> Refs: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01473.html
OK, I backed out that patch. I'm awaiting some explanation of what on Earth
is going on. I'm guessing that Timothy Wall changed the version upstream but
not the version in gcc, and then you changed the version in gcc but not the
version upstream. So, we have a two sets of changes, and I can't tell which
is supposed to go where.