On Nov 29 10:18, Sam Habiel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:58 AM Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 28 11:06, Sam Habiel wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:01 AM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 14:07 -0500, Sam Habiel wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > GT.M contains a large > > > > > amount of assembly code, written to run on the x32 Linux ABI and the > > > > > AMD x64 ABI. It's was very easy to get the x32 Linux ABI to run on > > > > > Cygwin x32; Cygwin x64 on the other hand uses the Windows x64 ABI, > > > > > which is very different than the AMD ABI (more detail here: > > > > > https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/09/06/stack-frame-layout-on-x86-64/). > > > > > I don't have the expertise nor the time to rewrite a lot of assembly > > > > > code to use the Windows x64 ABI. There are about 100 source code files > > > > > that are in assembly. > > > > > > > > -mabi=sysv ? > > > > > > > Are you telling me that gcc has a flag to support AMD ABI on Cygwin > > > x64? The assembly code is not standalone; it gets called from C code > > > and calls C code. > > > > That's what he's telling you. However, you have to interact with the MS > > ABI(*) as well as soon as you call external library functions so it > > makes sense to keep your C code in MS ABI. For the assembler functions, > > you can just tell the compiler they are in SYSV ABI by adding a function > > attribute to the declaration: > > > > int asm_func (args) __attribute__ ((sysv_abi)) > > > > Good luck, > > Corinna > > > > (*) Just keep in mind that Cygwin is LP64, not LLP64: > > https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.programming.64bitporting > > [...] > [...] > This sounds very promising, but I would like a clarification; because > I think you covered 50% of the issue: > > 1. There are frequent calls from the C code to Assembly. > 2. There are also frequent calls from Assembly to C code. > > Looks like compiling the .s files with the -mabi=sysv flag and > declaring the function in C with the __attribute__ ((sysv_abi)) will > fix #1.
You shouldn't have to use the flag when building the assembler files,
they are using SYSV ABI anyway. In fact, while Yaakov is right,
basically, I think in your scenario you should only use the GCC function
attribute since that allows more fine-grained control. Just stick to MS
ABI by default and only perform the SYSV ABI juggle where required to
interact with the assembler code.
> How about #2? I don't see an easy solution. The assembly code puts
> together the parameters in the registers in the sysv way (rdi, rsi,
> rdx, rcx, r8, r9), not rcx, rdx, r8, and r9.
One way is to create a SYSV wrapper for each C function called from
assembler. Assuming this simple scenario:
There's a C function foo(), which is called from assembler as
well as from other C functions.
extern long foo (long, double, int, long);
For the "normal" (i.e. MS ABI) C code add this in front of the above
declaration:
#define foo(a,b,c,d) __foo((a),(b),(c),(d))
So the C function is renamed to __foo and C code will call __foo.
Add a wrapper C file to add a function foo with SYSV ABI, calling
__foo:
#undef foo
long __attribute__ ((sysv_abi))
foo (long a, double b, int c, long d)
{
return __foo (a,b,c,d);
}
That should do it. Of course there may be more complicated cases,
but I leave them as excercise for the reader, and only you are in
a position to know them ;)
HTH,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
