Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:15:52 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ryan Libby <rlibby@gmail.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r321284 - in head/sys: amd64/include sys Message-ID: <20170721061552.GK1935@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAHgpiFxZxdW30P3VDqe%2BcTihEf92c3AaJy7e9cJ1uGUdWGFu6Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <201707200647.v6K6l7Hq076554@repo.freebsd.org> <20170720172157.W1152@besplex.bde.org> <CAHgpiFxW7JzurYeYuN5WaN0Z%2BjcpPLSjtHL34iCgmdJUz7bSyg@mail.gmail.com> <20170720103323.GG1935@kib.kiev.ua> <CAHgpiFxZxdW30P3VDqe%2BcTihEf92c3AaJy7e9cJ1uGUdWGFu6Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:02:02PM -0700, Ryan Libby wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Konstantin Belousov > <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:08:30AM -0700, Ryan Libby wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [...] > >> > This bug is not very common. There seem to be no instances of it in > >> > <sys> (only sys/cdefs.h uses __attribute__(()), and it seems to use > >> > underscores for all the attributes). Grepping sys/include/*.h for > >> > attribute shows the following bugs: > >> > > >> > X amd64/include/efi.h:#define EFIABI_ATTR __attribute__((ms_abi)) > >> > X i386/include/efi.h:#define EFIABI_ATTR /* __attribute__((ms_abi)) */ /* clang fails with this */ > >> > X ofed/include/rdma/ib_user_mad.h:typedef unsigned long __attribute__((aligned(4))) packed_ulong; > >> > X ofed/include/rdma/ib_smi.h:} __attribute__ ((packed)); > >> > X ofed/include/rdma/ib_mad.h:} __attribute__ ((packed)); > >> > X ofed/include/rdma/ib_mad.h:} __attribute__ ((packed)); > >> > > >> > The commented-out ms_abi was only a style bug. Now it is a larger style > >> > bug -- it is different and worse than amd64. > >> > >> I'm not sure what to do about i386 there (again beyond fixing up the > >> spelling in the comment). Maybe the unsupported architectures should > >> just not be declaring EFIABI_ATTR at all? (Thoughts, kib?) > > > > I think i386 should be treated exactly same as amd64, i.e. EFIABI_ATTR > > should be not defined if gcc < 4.4. Or I do not understand the scope > > of the question. > > After googling around [1] and a quick check of the spec [2], it now > seems to me that the i386 comment might just be erroneous. I think the > right solution for sys/i386/include/efi.h may just be to delete the > comment and leave that EFIAPI_ATTR macro definition as empty (always, no > compiler version check) in order to use the native calling convention. > > [1] http://wiki.osdev.org/UEFI#Calling_Conventions > [2] http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_7.pdf At very least, the UEFI Spec requires 16-byte alignment of the stack. This is not guaranteed by our i386 ABI.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170721061552.GK1935>