On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 05:54 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:44 AM Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@wdc.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > libffi/ > > > > > * configure.ac: Add testsuite/libffi-site-extra.exp to output > > > > > files. > > > > > * configure: Regenerate. > > > > > * testsuite/libffi-site-extra.exp.in: New file. > > > > > * testsuite/Makefile.am (EXTRA_DEJAGNU_SITE_CONFIG): New > > > > > variable. > > > > > * testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate. > > > > > * testsuite/lib/libffi.exp (libffi-init): Handle > > > > > GCC_UNDER_TEST. > > > > > (libffi_target_compile): Likewise. > > > > > > > > Upstream libffi has local.exp. Is that possible to use the same file? > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion; I didn't realise we are so out of date WRT the > > > upstream version. > > > > > > I find the way local.exp has been wired in rather hackish as it makes the > > > template buried in `configure.ac' and also it requires running `autoconf' > > > whenever there is a need to change it. > > > > > > However that hack has been actually made to address this very problem > > > discussed with this submission, so why not simply sync our copy of libffi > > > with the upstream version? Then we can decide if changing the hack into > > > something cleaner is worth the hassle. > > > > I'd love to sync with upstream libffi. In fact, I have done it on my > > users/hjl/cet/master > > branch: > > > > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/commit/9090e840b8464ce0f684e305eb75ff4655d05deb > I think we'd like to update as well, but isn't there an ABI change in libffi > that has to be fixed first?
Libffi 3.4 ABI was changed to support CET. But it isn't the first time ABI change for libffi, -- H.J.
