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: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat 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 14:10:46 -0600
- 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> <20141215094223 dot GA3890 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
On 12/15/2014 03:42 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 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.
It's our copy of libffi -- I think we can assume any internals we like.
Similarly, when I finish writing the bits that allow libffi to
handle empty structures, I don't plan to conditionalize libgo,
I simply plan to assume it works.
r~
- 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
- Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH 00/13] Go closures, libffi, and the static chain