This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: Help: correct way to handle struct return values.
- From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at kylheku dot com>
- To: libffi-discuss at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 21:13:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: Help: correct way to handle struct return values.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <ec6e2212f16df6ba23cc4c4d1fc78cfd@mail.kylheku.com>
On 27.05.2017 20:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Hi all,
In the current texinfo doc, the callback stub does this to
return a value of type int:
/* Acts like puts with the file given at time of enclosure. */
void puts_binding(ffi_cif *cif, void *ret, void* args[],
void *stream)
{
*(ffi_arg *)ret = fputs(*(char **)args[0], (FILE *)stream);
}
Can someone show what the code would look like for a function
that returns the following type, and work everywhere: all
supported platforms, big or little endian:
struct little { char a, b };
This corresponds to libffi.call/struct5.c
Everything I'm seeing in the test suite seems like structs are handled
in the straighforward way in both ffi_call and closures. But
in this small struct test case there is this comment:
/* This is a hack to get a properly aligned result buffer */
test_structure_5 *ts5_result =
(test_structure_5 *) malloc (sizeof(test_structure_5));
What are the alignment requirements here; must the small
structure have the same alignment as ffi_arg?
And why so, if its size is smaller? If this has to be,
say, 8 bytes aligned, doesn't it mean something will be writing
an 8 byte data unit into it? In that case, shouldn't
the malloc request be padded up to 8 so there is no overrun?
I am not concerned about the alignment because I'm using alloca
for the return value buffer given to ffi_call.
I am worried though about the size. alloca(2) could give me an
8 byte aligned pointer which is only two byte away from the next
object on the stack; if something writes 8 bytes there, that is
very bad.