This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- From: Dominik Vogt <vogt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: libffi-discuss at sourceware dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gofrontend-dev at googlegroups dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:42:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1412973773-3942-1-git-send-email-rth at redhat dot com> <20141211090623 dot GA30484 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20141211092144 dot GE4283 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20141211103106 dot GA9789 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20141211122519 dot GA26215 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <5489F6D0 dot 8020009 at redhat dot com> <20141212120630 dot GA32026 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <548B307D dot 60000 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: libffi-discuss at sourceware dot org
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:14:21AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 04:06 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I'm not sure I've posted the missing patch anywhere yet, so it's
> > attached to this message. At the moment it enables
> > FFI_TYPE_COMPLEX only for s390[x], but eventually this should be
> > used unconditionally.
>
> Thanks for that. I'd been meaning to get around to that. I'll change the test
> to use FFI_TARGET_HAS_COMPLEX_TYPE and apply it to my branch.
Good. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to expose
FFI_TARGET_HAS_COMPLEX_TYPE as part of the libffi interface
though. It was meant as a temporary thing to be removed once all
platforms supported by libffi have implemented complex support. A
while ago I've posted a patch to change the macro's name to begin
with an underscore to make that clearer.
> > (This still leaves the dynamic linking issue if we do not use
> > libffi for reflection calls with x86* and s390[x]. Is the plan to
> > remove the platform specific abi code for the few platforms that
> > have it? I see no way to make them work with the static chain
> > patch anyway.)
>
> Well, the x86 paths were updated to work with the static chain, but indeed that
> required assembly rather than cheating and using C as you did.
>
> But removing all of that was always my goal. Indeed, my branch now has a patch
> to remove all of the target-specific code.
Fine with that. I wouldn't have written the s390 specific Abi code
in Go if libffi had been an option back then.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
- References:
- [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain