digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5570] New: 64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and complex numbers as function parameters
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/19) Feb 13 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Dec 16 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Dec 16 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Dec 16 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Dec 16 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Dec 17 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Feb 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/20) Apr 09 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Apr 10 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (26/28) Apr 10 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/21) Apr 11 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (22/22) Apr 11 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/28) Apr 16 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Apr 25 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) May 03 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) May 07 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) May 07 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) May 07 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) May 23 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (30/30) May 31 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/19) May 31 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/18) Jun 17 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/24) Jun 20 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/24) Jun 20 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Jun 25 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (17/18) Jun 26 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/31) Jun 26 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/27) Jun 26 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Jun 26 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/24) Jun 27 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Jul 30 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Oct 12 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/17) Oct 22 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Dec 29 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/20) Feb 06 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Feb 23 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Feb 25 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Jun 06 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Jun 06 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (26/28) Sep 21 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (16/19) Sep 22 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/29) Sep 22 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Summary: 64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and
complex numbers as function parameters
Product: D
Version: D1 & D2
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bugzilla digitalmars.com
15:08:20 PST ---
They are always pushed on the stack rather than sometimes being passed in
registers. Haven't got to fixing this yet.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 13 2011
d-bugmail puremagic.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
CC| |llucax gmail.com
Severity|normal |critical
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 16 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 PST --- Any ETA for a fix? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 16 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Mathias Baumann <mathias.baumann sociomantic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mathias.baumann sociomantic
| |.com
2011-12-16 06:13:08 PST ---
This bug prevents us from switching to 64bit. We really would appreciate a fix.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 16 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Damian Ziemba <nazriel6969 gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |nazriel6969 gmail.com
PST ---
Because of this bug, you can not use wxD with DMD64.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 16 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
siegelords_abode yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |siegelords_abode yahoo.com
See also http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6348. It's plain
impossible to use C libraries with value semantics for structs on 64 bits.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 17 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Trass3r <mrmocool gmx.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mrmocool gmx.de
So should we raise this to 'blocker'?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Graham <grahamc001uk yahoo.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |grahamc001uk yahoo.co.uk
---
Issue 6772 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6772
"Cannot pass cfloat argument type to a function on x86_64" is related or
possible duplicate.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Nick Sabalausky <cbkbbejeap mailinator.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cbkbbejeap mailinator.com
Severity|critical |blocker
22:12:13 PDT ---
"So should we raise this to 'blocker'?"
I would argue "yes" since the *only* way to work around it if you can't modify
the C side is to just not use 64-bit D. So it is a blocker for 64-bit D. (And
AIUI, not all 64-bit systems are multilib, so even switching to 32 isn't always
going to be an option.) Plus, there's...how many people *right here* have
identified it as blocking them?
Fuck, I'm just going to go ahead and raise it to blocker. If anyone has a
problem with that they can change it back. Either way, the important thing is
for this to get fixed, not to worry about its proper classification. So I don't
know why I even wrote all this...Oh well... ;)
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 09 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Mihail Strashun <m.strashun gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |m.strashun gmail.com
PDT ---
If bug preventing almost any x64 D code interconnecting with C libs is not a
blocker, I can hardly imagine what is.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 10 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jmdavisProg gmx.com
PDT ---
If bug preventing almost any x64 D code interconnecting with C libs is not a
blocker, I can hardly imagine what is.
I don't know how Walter decides that sort of thing or how he treats blockers. I
believe that the worse that we normally see is critical. But this is something
which has _never_ worked, and it's in a newer feature - 64-bit code generation
- and it's something that not everyone is using. So, something which was in D
itself (as opposed to how it talks with C code) which used to work but doesn't
now could certainly be more of a blocker than this, depending on what it was.
But in general, 64-bit specific stuff is less critical in that it only affects
those using 64-bit rather than _everyone_ like many bugs do.
I would actually expect Walter to consider this critical rather than a blocker.
Certainly, if blocker indicates that something should block a release, this
isn't it, since the bug has been around for as long as dmd's 64-bit code
generation has been. But that's up to him.
Regardless, this is a huge issue, and it should probably be treated as a higher
priority than it has been, but much of what _has_ been being worked on is high
priority stuff which affects much more D code than this does, so I suppose that
it's not all that surprising that Walter hasn't gotten around to this yet.
Still, I'd hope that this would be taken care of sooner rather than later.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 10 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 PDT ---So, something which was in D itself (as opposed to how it talks with C code) which used to work but doesn't now could certainly be more of a blocker than this,My point exactly is that interfacing to C broken at ABI level is much more important than any inside language issue. Regressions are more important, yes, but, well, there is an importance level "regression" before "blocker" exactly for them. I'd say it is in the same category as "wrong code generation" for basic language constructs. It is something you rarely expect from even the new language when facing problems, something rather hard to identify and something almost any desktop D user is doomed to meet when try to build something usable ( as most usable programs tend to involve C bindings at this stage of std lib ). Issue a warning that it can happen when compiling extern(C) stuff of x64 at least. tl;dr : it is really bad for marketing -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 11 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 PDT --- In general, something which has never worked is going to be treated as less of a priority than something which worked before and doesn't now - _especially_ when it's part of a newer feature. And this has _never_ worked correctly. And I don't know why you would think that a C ABI issue would be more important than an issue in D itself. As bad as this is, most D code is completely unaffected by this. It's only once you start dealing with C and structs that it matters. Now, why Walter hasn't this considered a high enough priority to fix it yet, I don't know. This is clearly a serious bug, and I would have thought that he would have made it a fairly high priority once he figured out that it was a problem, but for whatever reason, he hasn't. There are plenty of other high priority issues that he's been working on though - many of which have been around much longer than this. Still, one would hope that this wouldn't languish much longer. It's a major impedement to using 64-bit on D projects. By the way, for those that this is actually preventing from using 64-bit dmd and who really need it, gdc probably doesn't have this problem, since it relates to code generation. So, you could try that while waiting for Walter to get around to this. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 11 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella sociomantic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |http://d.puremagic.com/issu
| |es/show_bug.cgi?id=6772
2012-04-16 03:27:08 PDT ---
In general, something which has never worked is going to be treated as less of
a priority than something which worked before and doesn't now - _especially_
when it's part of a newer feature.
Yeah, and you know that something that worked before and doesn't work now is
exactly what's called a *regression*, which have higher priority than
*blocker*.
So we all agree on that :)
And this has _never_ worked correctly. And I
don't know why you would think that a C ABI issue would be more important than
an issue in D itself. As bad as this is, most D code is completely unaffected
by this. It's only once you start dealing with C and structs that it matters.
And that is a lot of codebase, you know? For example wxD, as Damian Ziemba
pointed out can't work without this fixed. Also, and probably much less
important than wxD, is making life at the company I work a little miserable
trying to migrate to 64bit with this bug around. AFAIK Walter cares about big
projects as wxD and making D usable for companies to consider this bug a
blocker when it really blocks that kind of uses.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 16 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Johan Hernandez <thepumpkin1979 gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |thepumpkin1979 gmail.com
11:19:32 PDT ---
This is definitely a blocker, please fix this, this is a huge issue on OSX too.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 25 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
James Miller <james aatch.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |james aatch.net
Throwing my vote in for this one, this is pretty much stopping me from using
DMD64 for my C bindings. For the record, LDC works in this case.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 03 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/246f737c0f246f0b89ee27bfb611965e64f611ac start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 07 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/246f737c0f246f0b89ee27bfb611965e64f611ac start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f1039b341f2798f176dcf3c34019682d413ea863 start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 07 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 12:40:48 PDT --- I'm very happy to see some commits on this issue, this is really important!!! Walter++!!! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 07 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |clugdbug yahoo.com.au
Another commit towards this issue:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/29eb972a2f329276a72a19e722671ff26bfe8534
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 23 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
2012-05-31 04:29:21 PDT ---
Just a simple example (I've used to see if the progress on the bug fixed some
of the problems I had :):
---
extern (C)
{
struct lldiv_t
{
long quot,
rem;
}
lldiv_t lldiv(long numer, long denom);
int printf(char* fmt, ...);
}
void main(char[][] args)
{
auto r = lldiv(94, 82);
printf("%lld %lld\n", r.quot, r.rem);
}
---
For me, returns a high, randomish (changes on each run) number and 3 or 1.
Examples:
20967488 3
32686144 3
38604832 1
20029472 1
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 31 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
12:39:49 PDT ---
Just a simple example (I've used to see if the progress on the bug fixed some
of the problems I had :):
---
extern (C)
{
struct lldiv_t
{
long quot,
rem;
}
The current state only fixes things that fit in one register. The lldiv_t is a
two register struct.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 31 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
klickverbot <code klickverbot.at> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |code klickverbot.at
---
When fixing the remaining issues, please also consider treating dynamic D
arrays as »struct Array(T) { T* ptr; size_t length; }« on x86_64, i.e. passing
them in two integer registers (if available).
This is what GDC and LDC are doing right now, since always passing them on the
stack, like DMD does right now, would require quite a lot of extra effort in
resp. additions to the respective backend code.
There currently is a »pass on the stack for efficiency« comment in
TypeDArray::toArgTypes(), but I can't quite see why this should be true in the
general case, to be honest.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 17 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 ---When fixing the remaining issues, please also consider treating dynamic D arrays as »struct Array(T) { T* ptr; size_t length; }« on x86_64, i.e. passing them in two integer registers (if available).The fields of the struct should obviously have been swapped. In any case, this has been addressed in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f50a339b86d9d2c141061d38f4f682211c3c07c3 and related commits – whether this was a coincidence or not, thanks a lot for the quick fix! ---When fixing the remaining issues, please also consider treating dynamic D arrays as »struct Array(T) { T* ptr; size_t length; }« on x86_64, i.e. passing them in two integer registers (if available).The fields of the struct should obviously have been swapped. In any case, this has been addressed in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f50a339b86d9d2c141061d38f4f682211c3c07c3 and related commits – whether this was a coincidence or not, thanks a lot for the quick fix! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 20 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 ---When fixing the remaining issues, please also consider treating dynamic D arrays as »struct Array(T) { T* ptr; size_t length; }« on x86_64, i.e. passing them in two integer registers (if available).The fields of the struct should obviously have been swapped. In any case, this has been addressed in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f50a339b86d9d2c141061d38f4f682211c3c07c3 and related commits – whether this was a coincidence or not, thanks a lot for the quick fix! ---When fixing the remaining issues, please also consider treating dynamic D arrays as »struct Array(T) { T* ptr; size_t length; }« on x86_64, i.e. passing them in two integer registers (if available).The fields of the struct should obviously have been swapped. In any case, this has been addressed in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f50a339b86d9d2c141061d38f4f682211c3c07c3 and related commits – whether this was a coincidence or not, thanks a lot for the quick fix! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 20 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Fawzi Mohamed <fawzi gmx.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fawzi gmx.ch
see Bug 8294, for something probably related with the work being done here...
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 25 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
---
Sigh – seems like I was not exactly right about how GDC and LDC are handling
arrays. Instead of treating them like the equivalent struct, they are treated
as if length and pointer were two separate arguments, with the important
difference of course being that with the x86_64 ABI, structs are never only
partly passed in registers (i.e., if there is only one register left, they
would still pass the length in it and only push the pointer on the stack).
The LDC x86_64 ABI implementation has had the following explanatory comment
since it was originally written in 2009:
This helps make things like printf("%.*s", o.toString()) work as expected; if
we didn't do this that wouldn't work if there were 4 other integer/pointer
arguments before the toString() call because the string got bumped to memory
with one integer register still free.
Changing the implementation to treat dynamic arrays/delegates the same as
two-element structs for a potentially easier implementation of va_arg, etc.
wouldn't be a problem, but we need to make a decision and, most importantly,
properly document the expected behavior on dlang.org.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 26 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ibuclaw ubuntu.com
---
Sigh – seems like I was not exactly right about how GDC and LDC are handling
arrays. Instead of treating them like the equivalent struct, they are treated
as if length and pointer were two separate arguments, with the important
difference of course being that with the x86_64 ABI, structs are never only
partly passed in registers (i.e., if there is only one register left, they
would still pass the length in it and only push the pointer on the stack).
They are created as a two field struct in GDC.
eg, delegates (D arrays are a little above)
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/master/gcc/d/d-glue.cc#L3801
which calls:
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/master/gcc/d/d-codegen.cc#L1514
The LDC x86_64 ABI implementation has had the following explanatory comment
since it was originally written in 2009:
This helps make things like printf("%.*s", o.toString()) work as expected; if
we didn't do this that wouldn't work if there were 4 other integer/pointer
arguments before the toString() call because the string got bumped to memory
with one integer register still free.
"%*.s" works purely out of coincidence. You should not rely on it working at
all - and if you are, you should really instead be fixing your program.
Regards
Iain
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 26 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 ---Oh well, apparently GDC handles dynamic arrays like structs in most cases, but as size_t/void* pairs for variadic arguments, ABI-wise – I discovered this behavior looking at the generated assembly while working on the LDC vararg ABI, and didn't expect formal arguments to be treated differently. Maybe the behavior should be unified?Sigh – seems like I was not exactly right about how GDC and LDC are handling arrays. Instead of treating them like the equivalent struct, they are treated as if length and pointer were two separate arguments […]They are created as a two field struct in GDC."%*.s" works purely out of coincidence. You should not rely on it working at all - and if you are, you should really instead be fixing your program.It does _not_ work only out of coincidence with LDC, as the ABI it is using was apparently explicitly designed by Frits to support this, judging from the comment I quoted before. It's platform-dependent, yes, but guaranteed to work – with GDC/LDC, that is, as this official ABI docs don't specify any details for passing array arguments. I suppose this was done to support code which assumes x86 behavior. In any case, I can't see much value in having it like this, and would certainly find just treating dynamic arrays as structs more natural. I just wanted to highlight that this needs to be discussed and probably documented. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 26 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
11:19:22 PDT ---
My intention is to have the following all behave the same way:
delegate
struct S { void*, void* }
void*[2]
for parameter passing. The same goes for dynamic arrays. That means if you wrap
a type in a struct, it will still pass the same way.
The idea of making %.*s work with strings (without using .length and .ptr) has
been deprecated for a long time, it isn't worth it.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 26 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 ---Yes, that is correct for dynamic arrays. :~) It does it on a condition that's pre-set as 'true' and can't be altered by the user. Of course, if all two field types in D (D arrays; delegates) should *always* be passed in the same way as two field struct should be, then I can turn it off (and add a switch to toggle it), or remove this code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------Oh well, apparently GDC handles dynamic arrays like structs in most cases, but as size_t/void* pairs for variadic arguments, ABI-wise – I discovered this behavior looking at the generated assembly while working on the LDC vararg ABI, and didn't expect formal arguments to be treated differently. Maybe the behavior should be unified?Sigh – seems like I was not exactly right about how GDC and LDC are handling arrays. Instead of treating them like the equivalent struct, they are treated as if length and pointer were two separate arguments […]They are created as a two field struct in GDC.
Jun 27 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 Progress at DMD1.075/2.060 beta2: This now works for structs which contain integral types only, or which contain floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have an int member and a float member. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 30 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Adrian Matoga <epi atari8.info> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |epi atari8.info
*** Issue 8810 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 12 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com
12:47:53 PDT ---
Progress at DMD1.075/2.060 beta2:
This now works for structs which contain integral types only, or which contain
floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have an int member and a
float member.
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/f1ac00d2
Output is Test(5, 6, 5, 6) instead of Test(5, 6, 7, 8). It works OK if the
function is extern(C).
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 22 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 PST --- I added issue 9239 as a blocker of this, as it also concerns the System V x86-64 ABI. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 29 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Marco.Leise gmx.de
---
Is this why my XCB calls on Linux fail? I already accused XCB people of writing
incorrect tutorials until I realized that the exact same code does work in C.
After probably two hours of trial and error to fix my code and reading articles
on the web the word x86-64 showed up there and I had a dim memory of something
not working in DMD 64-bit and C structs. So I tried GDC again, which I stopped
because it produced another error somewhere else. There it works. The struct I
try to get returned by a C library function looks like this:
struct { void*, int, int }
Most notably the int fields in my case should be 116 and 1, but are 0 and 0,
while the pointer does have some value (not sure if the correct one as they
change from executable to executable).
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 06 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/8fbb9279d51605d74824789d4954477b714bef52 64 bit ABI struct returns - Issue 5570 again https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/a39da1070a5dbc84ecc1cd509ea85634ffdd7081 64 bit ABI 16byte struct returns - Issue 5570 again -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 23 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/b2da13f39701796a6934e200f7c024305bd0c9e8 64 bit ABI 16byte struct returns - Issue 5570 again -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 25 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |code dawg.eu
Is this finally finished?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 06 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 PDT --- I don't think the three byte struct issue (see linked bug) has been fixed yet, but I haven't checked in a while. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 06 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
thelastmammoth gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |thelastmammoth gmail.com
I don't think the three byte struct issue (see linked bug) has been fixed yet,
but I haven't checked in a while.
has not been fixed. was going to submit a bug report until I saw this thread.
problem with:
struct VideoMode{
uint width;
uint height;
uint bitsPerPixel;
}
sfWindow* sfWindow_create(sfVideoMode mode, const(char)* title, uint style,
const(ContextSettings)* settings);
This is used in SFML-D https://github.com/krzat/SFML-D, making it unsable on
osx 64bit: the sample program crashes with auto screen = new
RenderWindow(VideoMode(800, 600), "Game", WindowStyle.Default, null); which I
believe is caused by this.
This leads to a lot of duplication, for example the authors had to duplicate c
bindings just to address this:
https://github.com/Jebbs/DSFML-C where they point to this bug.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 21 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 02:47:30 PDT ---This leads to a lot of duplication, for example the authors had to duplicate c bindings just to address this: https://github.com/Jebbs/DSFML-C where they point to this bug.I wonder if as a workaround you could type the prototypes in D as: // note the .tupleof sfWindow* sfWindow_create(VideoMode.tupleof mode, const(char)* title, uint style, const(ContextSettings)* settings); And then call it via: VideoMode vm; sfWindow_create(vm.tupleof, ...); I'd assume this would then properly use the stack? It's worth trying out to avoid any new code duplication, and then when 5570 is finally fixed all you have to do in user code is to remove ".tupleof" in the calls. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 22 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570corrected that to sfWindow_create(typeof(VideoMode.tupleof), ...)This leads to a lot of duplication, for example the authors had to duplicate c bindings just to address this: https://github.com/Jebbs/DSFML-C where they point to this bug.I wonder if as a workaround you could type the prototypes in D as: // note the .tupleof sfWindow* sfWindow_create(VideoMode.tupleof mode, const(char)* title, uint style, const(ContextSettings)* settings);And then call it via: VideoMode vm; sfWindow_create(vm.tupleof, ...);still segfaultsI'd assume this would then properly use the stack? It's worth trying out to avoid any new code duplication, and then when 5570 is finally fixed all you have to do in user code is to remove ".tupleof" in the calls.so far my (sad) woraround is to add a new C function that takes a pointer to the struct, and link against it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 22 2013