This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: [PATCH] win64 support for libffi (2/2)
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Timothy Wall <twalljava at dev dot java dot net>, Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libffi-discuss at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:41:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] win64 support for libffi (2/2)
- References: <635C3243-B89E-460E-9C0F-209308D89729@dev.java.net> <b609cb3b0905171605tc6a10b7u683c43a99f97382f@mail.gmail.com> <4A109F74.6060108@gmail.com> <4DB6E56B-C18E-4021-84BD-EAE566EC0A65@dev.java.net> <4A112C2D.8060008@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Timothy Wall wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> NightStrike wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Timothy Wall
>>>> <twalljava@dev.java.net> wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds support for win64 builds under mingw64 for libffi.
>>>>> Diffs
>>>>> are against current libffi CVS (5/12/2009).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for this!!!
>>>
>>> ?Bad news guys, there's a problem: GCC's in-tree libffi is way behind
>>> sourceware CVS HEAD, like at least an entire ABI version IIUC.
>
> The libffi ABI has changed? ?Are you sure?
>
>>> The patch doesn't come even close to applying cleanly to GCC, I'm afraid.
>>>
>>> ?It either needs backporting, or a whole new version of libffi needs
>>> importing and a whole lot of targets tested. ?You'd probably better
>>> discuss
>>> this with the java list, I think they're the owners of libffi in GCC.
>
>> Nominally, the libffi list gets the patches (I've cc'd there) and
>> Anthony Green promises to migrate stuff back and forth between
>> sourceware and gcc, but I've not heard a peep from Mr. Green.
>>
>> I will remove gcc-patches from future To: lists, and send to
>> java-patches instead.
>
> I've been trying to make sure gcc's libffi has stayed in step with
> upstream, so there should be no problem with an import.
Last time I checked the GCC copy of libffi looked more recent
and upstream missed a lot of patches.
Richard.
> Andrew.
>