This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: Defining a libffi.so.4 ABI
"M.C.A. (Marco) Devillers" <marco.devillers@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, if you would be redefining a new API, there are some things I
> would like (out of the top of my head):
> a) Treat the return type as part of the CIF. (Why not have all the
> static information in it?)
> b) Don't treat a void type different than any other type. (Don't
> really remember, it led to a quirk in my compiler).
>
> I think if you do that, you'll find it becomes a lot more orthogonal.
Let me repeat another time: I'm not interested in changing or redefining
the libffi API in any way. That's for the libffi maintainers to pursue.
My sole intention is to codify the existing ABI (Application Binary
Interface), deciding which symbols are to be exported.
If you come up with a revised API before that, fine with me, but expect
lots of breakage and resistance if it is incompatible with the existing
one.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University