| Message ID | 20100706181221.GA21220@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 07/06/2010 11:12 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:48:20AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/06/2010 09:29 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> -__attribute__((transaction_pure)) >>> -extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM; >>> +extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE; >>> + >>> +__attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE >>> +extern void *_ITM_malloc (size_t); >>> +__attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE >>> +extern void *_ITM_calloc (size_t, size_t); >>> +extern void _ITM_free (void *) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE; >> >> I'm not sure that _ITM_malloc et al should include ITM_REGPARM. > > Arghh, I was getting confused by a complaint by Patrick about a > %eax<->%rax problem in the calling sequence, but that must be something > different because I can't reproduce it. That was due to C's implicit type of "int" for undeclared functions. > * libitm.h (ITM_PURE): Define. > Declare _ITM_malloc, _ITM_calloc, and _ITM_free. Ok. r~
On 07/06/2010 09:28 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/06/2010 11:12 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:48:20AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 07/06/2010 09:29 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>>> -__attribute__((transaction_pure)) >>>> -extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM; >>>> +extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE; >>>> + >>>> +__attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE >>>> +extern void *_ITM_malloc (size_t); >>>> +__attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE >>>> +extern void *_ITM_calloc (size_t, size_t); >>>> +extern void _ITM_free (void *) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE; >>> >>> I'm not sure that _ITM_malloc et al should include ITM_REGPARM. Can you explain me why _ITM_malloc shouldn't have ITM_REGPARM whereas for example _ITM_memsetW must have it? >> Arghh, I was getting confused by a complaint by Patrick about a >> %eax<->%rax problem in the calling sequence, but that must be something >> different because I can't reproduce it. > > That was due to C's implicit type of "int" for undeclared functions. > >> * libitm.h (ITM_PURE): Define. >> Declare _ITM_malloc, _ITM_calloc, and _ITM_free. Yes it solved my issue. Thank you! Patrick.
On 07/06/2010 01:58 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > Can you explain me why _ITM_malloc shouldn't have ITM_REGPARM whereas > for example _ITM_memsetW must have it? The other functions in that header are defined as part of the Intel ABI, and that ABI specifies REGPARM. _ITM_malloc is not part of that ABI. r~
different because I can't reproduce it. Direct calls to _ITM_malloc() agree with the calling convention expected by such function. Patrick, if after a complete toolchain rebuild with this patch, you still see an ABI problem, send me the testcase. > Also, it's canonical to place these attributes before the ";", > not before the "extern". Fixed. OK? * libitm.h (ITM_PURE): Define. Declare _ITM_malloc, _ITM_calloc, and _ITM_free. Index: libitm.h =================================================================== --- libitm.h (revision 161512) +++ libitm.h (working copy) @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ extern "C" { #endif #define ITM_NORETURN __attribute__((noreturn)) +#define ITM_PURE __attribute__((transaction_pure)) /* The following are externally visible definitions and functions, though only very few of these should be called by user code. */ @@ -152,8 +153,15 @@ extern void _ITM_addUserUndoAction(_ITM_ extern int _ITM_getThreadnum(void) ITM_REGPARM; -__attribute__((transaction_pure)) -extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM; +extern void _ITM_dropReferences (void *, size_t) ITM_REGPARM ITM_PURE; + +extern void *_ITM_malloc (size_t) + __attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_PURE; + +extern void *_ITM_calloc (size_t, size_t) + __attribute__((__malloc__)) ITM_PURE; + +extern void _ITM_free (void *) ITM_PURE; /* The following typedefs exist to make the macro expansions below work