[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM
From: |
Thomas Preud'homme |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:56:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) |
Le vendredi 26 avril 2013 21:27:25, James Lyon a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I don't have an ARM test system available but it is a new test...
>
> The idea of abitest is to check compatibility of TCC calling convention
> with GCC, but I also made rather a lot of changes since compatibility
> with GCC on x86 an x86-64 had a lot of problems in corner cases.
IMHO we should try to have the same behavior as gcc and clang. When they
differ we might decide to follow either one or the other, except if there is a
standard stating what is the right behavior.
> I think
> that ARM should use a hidden pointer to return the data in
> ret_2float_test, but reading the ARM EABI spec a structure with 2 floats
> in might count as a "64-bit containerized vector" and thus would be
> returned in r0 and r1. In that case I think the thing to do is modify
> gfunc_sret to detect this.
Indeed, such a structure qualify as 64-bit containerized vector. I handled
that case when I added support for the hard float calling convention. You can
see the is_float_hgen_aggr function that test this.
>
> James
Best regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM, Christian Jullien, 2013/04/26
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM, James Lyon, 2013/04/26
- [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?, grischka, 2013/04/30
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?, Daniel Glöckner, 2013/04/30
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?, Sean Conner, 2013/04/30
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?, Stan Steel, 2013/04/30