• John Colvin (40/40) Jul 12 2012 When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a
• Jonathan M Davis (8/57) Jul 12 2012 I expect that it's a bug. Please report it: http://d.puremagic.com/issue...
• Don Clugston (2/40) Jul 12 2012 Known bug, already fixed in git for a couple of months.

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a 
totally different result, the documentation suggests that they 
should be the same...

import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio;

void main() {
	foo(0,5,4,3);
}

void foo(int dummy, ...) {
	va_list ap;
		
	for(int i; i<10; ++i) {
		version(X86_64) {
			va_start(ap, __va_argsave);
		}
		else version(X86) {
			va_start(ap, dummy);
		}	
		else
			static assert(false, "Unsupported platform");
		
		int tmp;
		va_arg!(int)(ap,tmp);
		writeln(ap," ", tmp);
	}
}

when compiled with -m32 I get:

FF960278 5
FF960278 5
FF960278 5
FF960278 5
FF960278 5

and with -m64 I get:

7FFFCDF941D0 5
7FFFCDF941D0 4
7FFFCDF941D0 3
7FFFCDF941D0 38
7FFFCDF941D0 -839302560

(the end stuff is garbage, different every time)

I'm uncertain, even after looking over the stdarg src, why this 
would happen. The correct output is all 5s obviously.

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:12:08 John Colvin wrote:
 When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a
 totally different result, the documentation suggests that they
 should be the same...
 
 import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio;
 
 void main() {
 	foo(0,5,4,3);
 }
 
 void foo(int dummy, ...) {
 	va_list ap;
 
 	for(int i; i<10; ++i) {
 		version(X86_64) {
 			va_start(ap, __va_argsave);
 		}
 		else version(X86) {
 			va_start(ap, dummy);
 		}
 		else
 			static assert(false, "Unsupported platform");
 
 		int tmp;
 		va_arg!(int)(ap,tmp);
 		writeln(ap," ", tmp);
 	}
 }
 
 when compiled with -m32 I get:
 
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 
 and with -m64 I get:
 
 7FFFCDF941D0 5
 7FFFCDF941D0 4
 7FFFCDF941D0 3
 7FFFCDF941D0 38
 7FFFCDF941D0 -839302560
 
 (the end stuff is garbage, different every time)
 
 I'm uncertain, even after looking over the stdarg src, why this
 would happen. The correct output is all 5s obviously.

I expect that it's a bug. Please report it: http://d.puremagic.com/issues

64-bit support is relatively new, and while it works well overall, there _are_ 
a few serious bugs with it - particularly with regards to interacting with C 
(e.g. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 ). It's being worked 
on, but it's obviously still buggy in the interim, and it sounds like you 
found another bug with it.

- Jonathan M Davis

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com> writes:

On 12/07/12 11:12, John Colvin wrote:
 When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a totally
 different result, the documentation suggests that they should be the
 same...

 import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio;

 void main() {
      foo(0,5,4,3);
 }

 void foo(int dummy, ...) {
      va_list ap;

      for(int i; i<10; ++i) {
          version(X86_64) {
              va_start(ap, __va_argsave);
          }
          else version(X86) {
              va_start(ap, dummy);
          }
          else
              static assert(false, "Unsupported platform");

          int tmp;
          va_arg!(int)(ap,tmp);
          writeln(ap," ", tmp);
      }
 }

 when compiled with -m32 I get:

 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5
 FF960278 5

 and with -m64 I get:

 7FFFCDF941D0 5
 7FFFCDF941D0 4
 7FFFCDF941D0 3
 7FFFCDF941D0 38
 7FFFCDF941D0 -839302560

 (the end stuff is garbage, different every time)

 I'm uncertain, even after looking over the stdarg src, why this would
 happen. The correct output is all 5s obviously.

Known bug, already fixed in git for a couple of months.