GNU bug report logs - #13386
Fwd: bug#13342: Errors trying to build Guile 2.0.7

Previous Next

Full log

Message #7 received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 13342 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, control <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
	Peter Teeson <peter.teeson <at> me.com>
Subject: Re: bug#13342: [PARTIALLY SOLVED] bug#13342: Errors trying to build
	Guile 2.0.7
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:56:43 +0100

retitle 13342 Clang, the FFI, and 8-bit signed integers
merge 13342 13386
thanks

Hello!

Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:

> ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> I looked at Section 3.2.3 (“Parameter Passing”) of the SysV ABI x86_64
>> PS but couldn’t find any evidence as to what the correct behavior is.
>
> I read the same section, and although it is not as clear as I'd prefer,
> my interpretation is that the caller is responsible for sign-extending
> signed chars to ints.

What exactly in that section makes you think so?

> Clang strictly requires callers to sign-extend, whereas GCC is tolerant
> of callers who fail to do so.  IMO, both behaviors are permitted by the
> ABI.
>
> The problem is that libffi does *not* sign-extend arguments passed in
> registers when making calls, which is IMO a bug that has gone (mostly)
> unnoticed because of the tolerance and ubiquity of GCC.

Oh, I see.

>> However, on the caller side, both compilers emit the same code.  This
>> program:
>>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>>
>> extern int64_t test_sum (int8_t a, int64_t b);
>>
>> int64_t
>> foo (void)
>> {
>>   return test_sum (-1, 123132);
>> }
>>
>> leads to the following assembly with both compilers:
>>
>> foo:                                    # @foo
>> 	.cfi_startproc
>> 	movl	$-1, %edi
>> 	movl	$123132, %esi           # imm = 0x1E0FC
>> 	jmp	test_sum                # TAILCALL
>>
>> (And as we’ve seen, libffi does the same.)
>
> No, libffi does *not* do the same.  Take a look at the relevant code:
>
>   https://github.com/atgreen/libffi/blob/master/src/x86/ffi64.c#L488

Indeed!

[...]

> In summary, I think this is a bug in libffi.
>
> Note that it has already been reported that the libffi testsuite shows
> many failures on OS X Lion, and the failures appear to be related to
> this precise issue:

Note that it’s not just Darwin: I tested with Clang on GNU/Linux.

>   http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2012/msg00162.html
>
> The libffi maintainer wrote "I'm going to chalk this up to compiler
> bugs", based on his observation that the tests worked properly when
> compiled with -O0.  I think it's time to raise this issue again on the
> libffi-discuss mailing list.

Would you like to email them?

Anyway, thanks for the thorough investigation!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.