From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C1BBBAF for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:33:19 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUDAP8T8ErUCb2ngWdsb2JhbACbVQEBFiTDO4Q9BA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,675,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="37493588" Received: from mail.enyo.de ([212.9.189.167]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 03 Nov 2009 20:33:19 +0100 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1N5P81-0007m4-MM; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:33:17 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N5P81-0006rZ-4E; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:33:17 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: Adrien Cc: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Binding C libraries which use variable arguments (stdarg.h) References: <666572260910281507q74cb1c1at157c9e3c86070c69@mail.gmail.com> <4AE8C987.8020100@starynkevitch.net> <666572260910291418p585b0aa9laadc14f6589c9772@mail.gmail.com> <4AEAB347.3060008@inria.fr> <666572260911010131x1b3c778bgc1c87879ca96a62d@mail.gmail.com> <87ljiqmrjy.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <666572260911010412n3f60bb21pc6e1d3bb70279f58@mail.gmail.com> <87r5sil9sz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <666572260911010658r2eb8bdfbl9b06222079869c7b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:33:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <666572260911010658r2eb8bdfbl9b06222079869c7b@mail.gmail.com> (Adrien's message of "Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:58:47 +0100") Message-ID: <87hbtbxv2a.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam: no; 0.00; non-zero:01 caml-list:01 binding:02 florian:03 variable:06 arguments:07 registers:08 correct:08 load:08 wrong:10 entry:10 libraries:11 happens:13 however:13 but:14 * Adrien: > I found a few references indicating that libffi was properly doing > that however. I looked at the assembly, and it is doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. The "only load sse registers if ssecount non-zero" change in 2005 happens to put the SSE register count in the correct register, but this wasn't the intent of the change based on the ChangeLog entry. 8-)