Re: Calling c++ functions returning non-pod types

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

On 02/21/2013 05:46 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
> On 21/02/13 15:19, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 01:29 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
>>> I think a better option would be to tell libffi that the return type is
>>> a "non-pod" and let it jump the hoops appropriate for the architecture -
>>> am I correct in guessing that my approach isn't portable?
>>
>> Sort of.  There is a standardish C++ ABI known for reasons too arcane to
>> go into as the Itanium C++ ABI
>> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html
>>
>> However, putting all this stuff into libffi would be too much IMO.  You
>> could think of defining a C++ layer that calls libffi.
>
> if only because libffi doesn't create temporaries for ignored return values.
> I guess I'm going to have to define a portability layer myself then.
> 
> Does/could libffi define macro I could use to determine the c++ ABI?

Only the usual system defines.

> The next thing I'd need is a page of docs for all the c++ ABIs for the c 
> ABIs that libffi supports.
>
> If you could reply with such a list that would be great - I'll push 
> ahead with the platform I'm on now - Debian sid amd64.

All the Linuxen use the Itanium C++ ABI.  Do you care about Windows
and BSD?

Andrew.