qtiuto
Error on arm32
Hello ! Testing your project with with the apk on android arm32 (nexus7) this program fail:
local ffi = require('ffi')
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
ffi.cdef('int sprintf(char *buf, const char *fmt, ...);')
print(c.sprintf(buf, '%g', 5.3), ffi.string(buf));
Expected:
3 5.3
Output:
11 2.14609e+41
The above and the following are from the original test.lua and it also fail the following with segfault:
-- unsigned should be ignored for pointer rules
ffi.cdef([=[
int strncmp(const signed char *s1, const unsigned char *s2, size_t n);
]=]);
assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0); -- segfault here
...
-- Test io.tmpfile()
ffi.cdef ([=[
int fprintf ( FILE * stream, const char * format, ... );
]=]);
local f = io.tmpfile();
ffi.C.fprintf(f, "test: %s\n", "foo"); -- segfault here
f:seek("set", 0);
local str = f:read('*l');
assert(str == 'test: foo', str);
f:close();
Commenting the above mentioned tests all the rest of test.lua pass. Great work !
The first is a alignment bug, the second I can not reproduce it，and the third is because io.tempfile only generates a valid pointer for the io library, not for the ffi library. May be fix or not.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月16日周三 05:41写道：
Hello ! Testing your project with with the apk on android arm32 (nexus7) this program fail:
local ffi = require('ffi') local buf = ffi.new('char[256]') local c = ffi.C ffi.cdef('int sprintf(char *buf, const char *fmt, ...);') print(csprintf(buf, '%g', 5.3), ffi.string(buf));
Expected:
3 5.3
Output:
11 2.14609e+41
The above and the following are from the original test.lua and it also fail the following with segfault:
// unsigned should be ignored for pointer rules ffi.cdef([=[ int strncmp(const signed char *s1, const unsigned char *s2, size_t n); ]=]); assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0); -- segfault here ... // Test io.tmpfile() ffi.cdef ([=[ int fprintf ( FILE * stream, const char * format, ... ); ]=]); local f = io.tmpfile(); ffi.C.fprintf(f, "test: %s\n", "foo"); -- segfault here
f:seek("set", 0); local str = f:read('*l'); assert(str == 'test: foo', str); f:close();
Commenting the above mentioned tests all the rest of test.lua pass. Great work !
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUmkGq-Wf2qIXa_YAfKg5HLUfaZkAks5vDkrsgaJpZM4aB3fT .
Hello ! After removing the meta method optimisation I've got it to compile again but now it fails here:
assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7) == 4 && ffi.string(buf) == '06.7');
Output of:
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7), ffi.string(buf));
8 03.41612
It was passing before. And it still segfaults here:
assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0);
Does it only happen on arm? Does it happen on emulator? Does it happen on other devices? My device has no problem with these bugs. The bug with strncmp seems pretty weird. I will test them on emulator later.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月16日周三 22:02写道：
Hello ! After removing the meta method optimisation I've got it to compile again but now it fails here:
assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7) == 4 && ffi.string(buf) == '06.7');
Output of:
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7), ffi.string(buf) == '06.7')); 8 03.41612
I was passing before. And it still segfaults here:
assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0);
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454788921, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUi_NMyIHP-Bwsh7Vhv9EJIcGsdSBks5vDzDYgaJpZM4aB3fT .
Hello qtiuto !
Here you have attached what I'm using to test your changes to luaffi, it's luaffib/raviffi with your changes but without the meta methods optimization.
The makefile maybe need some adjusts to work for you, as it is it doesn't work on x86 without removing -D__ANDROID_API__=25 from the CFLAGS.
I use it as is on my nexus7 inside termux (bash sell). Cheers ! luaffifb-arm.zip
Please apply CHECK_ALIGN in ff.c firstly. It's the final fix for arm alignment. You have three argument before the double value in the the sprintf and it breaks the arm argument passing rule for double/int64. Apply CHECK_ALIGN and it will have the double value offset 4. If you use 'llx' instead of 'g', you will see the higher 4 bytes of the double value is now the lower 4 bytes. Then I will try termux to compile your work.
I have tested it on my phone by termux in arm32 mode and nothing goes wrong.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月16日周三 23:20写道：
Hello qtiuto !
Here you have attached what I'm using to test your changes to luaffi, it's luaffib/raviffi with your changes but without the meta methods optimization.
The makefile maybe need some adjusts to work for you, as it is it doesn't work on x86 without removing -D__ANDROID_API__=25 from the CFLAGS.
I use it as is on my nexus7 inside termux (bash sell). Cheers ! luaffifb-arm.zip https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/files/2764706/luaffifb-arm.zip
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454817319, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUnoqZY0TubDkLBztOVcAVjsvCjdWks5vD0M6gaJpZM4aB3fT .
Hello ! I also just tested on a raspberry pi archlinux and all tests pass. But on my nexus7 this 'assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0);' still segfaults, I'll test on an old netbook running ubuntu x86 to see on 32bits.
I think the error may be induce my mmap, which may fail on some devices with limited memory. I test it on my nano pi and it sometimes fails also.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 02:01写道：
Hello ! I also just tested on a raspberry pi archlinux and all tests pass. But on my nexus7 this 'assert(ffi.C.strncmp("two", "three", 3) ~= 0);' still segfaults, I'll test on an old netbook running ubuntu x86 to see on 32bits.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454878765, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUsCC7dXO6L5K1q8p5_6dhwnLWZ_sks5vD2kSgaJpZM4aB3fT .
Hello ! I just tested on the x86 netbook and all tests passed, now I'm trying on a nexus5 but I'm having small problems to get it working, later I'll report it, and maybe test on an OSX and on IOS
I solve the problem on my nano pi by calling __builtin_clear_cache, but it's a gcc function. On linux, cacheflush is available. I'm not sure about the compatiblity on other platform. Windows cache has been flush actually.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 02:36写道：
Hello ! I just tested on the x86 netbook and all tests passed, now I'm trying on a nexus5 but I'm having small problems to get it working, later I'll report it, and maybe test on an OSX and on IOS
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454890409, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUs9Ry8d3-Aoo-Z61vwCL46-Eu3L8ks5vD3EYgaJpZM4aB3fT .
I just finished test on the nexus5 and all tests passed, on OSX also all tests passed, now I'm trying on an ipod5 ios8.1 jailbroken to see what happens.
Hello ! Testing it on the iPOD iOS8.1 arm32 it compiles but gives the same error as before the patch for alignment:
print(c.sprintf(buf, '%g', 5.3), ffi.string(buf));
11 4.66726e-62
But all other tests passed.
LuaJIT 2.1 compiled but when try to run it trash the device, need reboot.
replace %g with %llx and send me the result, OK?
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 04:31写道：
Hello ! Testing it on the iPOD iOS8.1 arm32 it compiles but gives the same error as before the patch for alignment:
print(c.sprintf(buf, '%g', 5.3), ffi.string(buf)); 11 4.66726e-62
LuaJIT 2.1 compiled but when try to run it trash the device, need reboot.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454929150, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUjUbn0CvkftcCGzLJOVlbi10fGkGks5vD4wTgaJpZM4aB3fT .
Here you have:
lua test.lua
Running test
11 4.66726e-62
16 3333333316390cdc
4 06.7
Test PASSED
Code changed to show the above output:
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
--dad assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3) == 3 and ffi.string(buf) == '5.3')
assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", false) == 1 and ffi.string(buf) == '0')
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7), ffi.string(buf))
Have you check_align for arm? If you do, the results seems like that the machine may read a double from unaligned address when my align check offsets 4. try fill a integer before to check the alignment.May be a right result will occur. If you can get a right result from that way, then I think I need to handle it specially.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 04:36写道：
Here you have:
lua test.lua Running test 11 4.66726e-62 16 3333333316390cdc 4 06.7 Test PASSED
Code changed to show the above output:
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) --dad assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3) == 3 and ffi.string(buf) == '5.3') assert(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", false) == 1 and ffi.string(buf) == '0') print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d%g", false, 6.7), ffi.string(buf))
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454931068, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUoIjxggPge6XxOzFqlK1I_7GIbY7ks5vD41agaJpZM4aB3fT .
Hello ! I also isolate the code on one file to see if the interaction with the rest was the cause of the problem but no the problem remain the same:
local ffi = require("ffi")
ffi.cdef("int sprintf(char* buf, const char* format, ...);")
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
Output:
11 4.66726e-62
16 33333333181814a8
Hello ! With what you've told me we get this:
local ffi = require("ffi")
ffi.cdef("int sprintf(char* buf, const char* format, ...);")
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", 5), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g", 5, 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
Output:
1 5
5 5:5.3
11 4.66726e-62
16 3333333317043eb4
And here with more examples:
local ffi = require("ffi")
ffi.cdef("int sprintf(char* buf, const char* format, ...);")
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", 5), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%g", 5, 5.3, 6.7), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 6.7), ffi.string(buf))
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%d", 11, 6.7, 22), ffi.string(buf))
Output:
1 5
9 5:5.3:6.7
11 4.66726e-62
16 33333333153806c0
12 -9.25596e+61
9 11:6.7:22
It seems that you are getting close to the problem .
I can make sure that this a compiler bug or a library for the platform. The stack doesn't align eight and and the library function var_arg doesn't apply arm argument passing rule and do it as usual like x86. The platform should be handle specially or the gcc version should be handle specially. Any macro defines the platform? @mingodad
Just exclude the platform from checking alignment and every thing goes right.
I think you can work it out for I'm not familiar with ios macros.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 05:10写道：
And here with more examples:
local ffi = require("ffi") ffi.cdef("int sprintf(char* buf, const char* format, ...);")
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", 5), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%g", 5, 5.3, 6.7), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 6.7), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%d", 11, 6.7, 22), ffi.string(buf))
Output:
1 5 9 5:5.3:6.7 11 4.66726e-62 16 33333333153806c0 12 -9.25596e+61 9 11:6.7:22
It seems that you are getting close to the problem .
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454942846, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUuuSlE_-oyw_EU7QeZNXEw-QdAJzks5vD5VJgaJpZM4aB3fT .
Here is the assembler generated by this c program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double d1 = 5.3;
double d2 = 6.7;
float f1 = 5.3;
float f2 = 6.7;
char buf[256];
int rc;
rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", d1);
printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf);
rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", d2);
printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf);
rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", f1);
printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf);
rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", f2);
printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf);
return 0;
}
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.ios_version_min 5, 0
.syntax unified
.globl _main
.align 1
.code 16 @ @main
.thumb_func _main
_main:
@ BB#0:
push {r4, r5, r6, r7, lr}
add r7, sp, #12
push.w {r8, r10, r11}
sub sp, #268
movw r4, :lower16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
movw r10, #13107
movt r4, :upper16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
movw r8, :lower16:(L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr-(LPC0_1+4))
movt r8, :upper16:(L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr-(LPC0_1+4))
LPC0_0:
add r4, pc
LPC0_1:
add r8, pc
add r5, sp, #8
movt r10, #16405
mov.w r0, #858993459
ldr.w r8, [r8]
movs r1, #0
mov.w r2, #256
mov r3, r4
ldr.w r8, [r8]
str.w r8, [sp, #264]
strd r0, r10, [sp]
mov r0, r5
blx ___sprintf_chk
movw r6, :lower16:(L_.str.1-(LPC0_2+4))
mov r1, r0
movt r6, :upper16:(L_.str.1-(LPC0_2+4))
mov r2, r5
LPC0_2:
add r6, pc
mov r0, r6
blx _printf
movw r11, #52428
movw r0, #52429
movt r11, #16410
movt r0, #52428
strd r0, r11, [sp]
mov r0, r5
movs r1, #0
mov.w r2, #256
mov r3, r4
blx ___sprintf_chk
mov r1, r0
mov r0, r6
mov r2, r5
blx _printf
mov.w r0, #1073741824
movs r1, #0
strd r0, r10, [sp]
mov r0, r5
mov.w r2, #256
mov r3, r4
blx ___sprintf_chk
mov r1, r0
mov r0, r6
mov r2, r5
blx _printf
mov.w r0, #-1073741824
movs r1, #0
strd r0, r11, [sp]
mov r0, r5
mov.w r2, #256
mov r3, r4
blx ___sprintf_chk
mov r1, r0
mov r0, r6
mov r2, r5
blx _printf
ldr r0, [sp, #264]
subs.w r0, r8, r0
itttt eq
moveq r0, #0
addeq sp, #268
popeq.w {r8, r10, r11}
popeq {r4, r5, r6, r7, pc}
blx ___stack_chk_fail
.section __TEXT,__cstring,cstring_literals
L_.str: @ @.str
.asciz "%g"
L_.str.1: @ @.str.1
.asciz "%d\t%s\n"
.section __DATA,__nl_symbol_ptr,non_lazy_symbol_pointers
.align 2
L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr:
.indirect_symbol ___stack_chk_guard
.long 0
.subsections_via_symbols
Can you test whether the problem only happen s on variadic function? I'm not sure if general argument passing needs alignment for ios or not. If not, I think the dasc file need a little fix also. You can define a function with a int and a double as argument and a function with two ints and a double as argument to check whether you can receive right argments.
奥斯陆君王 [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 05:17写道：
I think you can work it out for I'm not familiar with ios macros.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 05:10写道：
And here with more examples:
local ffi = require("ffi") ffi.cdef("int sprintf(char* buf, const char* format, ...);")
local buf = ffi.new('char[256]')
local c = ffi.C
print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d", 5), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%g", 5, 5.3, 6.7), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%llx", 5.3), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%g", 6.7), ffi.string(buf)) print(c.sprintf(buf, "%d:%g:%d", 11, 6.7, 22), ffi.string(buf))
Output:
1 5 9 5:5.3:6.7 11 4.66726e-62 16 33333333153806c0 12 -9.25596e+61 9 11:6.7:22
It seems that you are getting close to the problem .
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454942846, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUuuSlE_-oyw_EU7QeZNXEw-QdAJzks5vD5VJgaJpZM4aB3fT .
The compiler doesn't work wrong. It 's the error from the receiver. It doesn't check stack alignment which will be done by other arm platform. Unfortunately, the stack doesn't align eight for some unkown functions and have the problem occur. I'm not willing to generate extra code to check the stack.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 05:24写道：
Here is the assembler generated by this c program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { double d1 = 5.3; double d2 = 6.7; float f1 = 5.3; float f2 = 6.7; char buf[256]; int rc; rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", d1); printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf); rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", d2); printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf); rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", f1); printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf); rc = sprintf(buf, "%g", f2); printf("%d\t%s\n", rc, buf);
return 0;}
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions .ios_version_min 5, 0 .syntax unified .globl _main .align 1 .code 16 @ @main .thumb_func main main: @ BB#0: push {r4, r5, r6, r7, lr} add r7, sp, #12 push.w {r8, r10, r11} sub sp, #268 movw r4, :lower16:(L.str-(LPC0_0+4)) movw r10, #13107 movt r4, :upper16:(L.str-(LPC0_0+4)) movw r8, :lower16:(L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr-(LPC0_1+4)) movt r8, :upper16:(L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr-(LPC0_1+4)) LPC0_0: add r4, pc LPC0_1: add r8, pc add r5, sp, #8 movt r10, #16405 mov.w r0, #858993459 ldr.w r8, [r8] movs r1, #0 mov.w r2, #256 mov r3, r4 ldr.w r8, [r8] str.w r8, [sp, #264] strd r0, r10, [sp] mov r0, r5 blx _sprintf_chk movw r6, :lower16:(L.str.1-(LPC0_2+4)) mov r1, r0 movt r6, :upper16:(L.str.1-(LPC0_2+4)) mov r2, r5 LPC0_2: add r6, pc mov r0, r6 blx _printf movw r11, #52428 movw r0, #52429 movt r11, #16410 movt r0, #52428 strd r0, r11, [sp] mov r0, r5 movs r1, #0 mov.w r2, #256 mov r3, r4 blx ___sprintf_chk mov r1, r0 mov r0, r6 mov r2, r5 blx _printf mov.w r0, #1073741824 movs r1, #0 strd r0, r10, [sp] mov r0, r5 mov.w r2, #256 mov r3, r4 blx ___sprintf_chk mov r1, r0 mov r0, r6 mov r2, r5 blx _printf mov.w r0, #-1073741824 movs r1, #0 strd r0, r11, [sp] mov r0, r5 mov.w r2, #256 mov r3, r4 blx ___sprintf_chk mov r1, r0 mov r0, r6 mov r2, r5 blx _printf ldr r0, [sp, #264] subs.w r0, r8, r0 itttt eq moveq r0, #0 addeq sp, #268 popeq.w {r8, r10, r11} popeq {r4, r5, r6, r7, pc} blx ___stack_chk_fail
.section __TEXT,_cstring,cstring_literals L.str: @ @.str .asciz "%g"
L_.str.1: @ @.str.1 .asciz "%d\t%s\n"
.section __DATA,__nl_symbol_ptr,non_lazy_symbol_pointers .align 2 L___stack_chk_guard$non_lazy_ptr: .indirect_symbol ___stack_chk_guard .long 0
.subsections_via_symbols
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454947804, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUkWOoglnfnIjNDCtbgyLiU_ub8DPks5vD5ilgaJpZM4aB3fT .
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying:
#include <stdio.h>
void func1(int i1, double d1)
{
printf("%d : %g\n", i1, d1);
}
void func2(int i1, int i2, double d1)
{
printf("%d : %d : %g\n", i1, i2, d1);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double d1 = 5.3;
int i1 = 2;
int i2 = 4;
func1(i1, d1);
func2(i1, i2, d1);
return 0;
}
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.ios_version_min 5, 0
.syntax unified
.globl _func1
.align 1
.code 16 @ @func1
.thumb_func _func1
_func1:
@ BB#0:
push {r7, lr}
mov r7, sp
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, r0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
LPC0_0:
add r0, pc
blx _printf
pop {r7, pc}
.globl _func2
.align 1
.code 16 @ @func2
.thumb_func _func2
_func2:
@ BB#0:
push {r7, lr}
mov r7, sp
sub sp, #4
mov r9, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, r0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str.1-(LPC1_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str.1-(LPC1_0+4))
str r3, [sp]
LPC1_0:
add r0, pc
mov r3, r9
blx _printf
add sp, #4
pop {r7, pc}
.globl _main
.align 3
.code 16 @ @main
.thumb_func _main
_main:
@ BB#0:
push {r4, r5, r7, lr}
add r7, sp, #8
sub sp, #4
vldr d16, LCPI2_0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str-(LPC2_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str-(LPC2_0+4))
movs r1, #2
vmov r4, r5, d16
LPC2_0:
add r0, pc
mov r2, r4
mov r3, r5
blx _printf
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str.1-(LPC2_1+4))
movs r1, #2
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str.1-(LPC2_1+4))
movs r2, #4
LPC2_1:
add r0, pc
mov r3, r4
str r5, [sp]
blx _printf
movs r0, #0
add sp, #4
pop {r4, r5, r7, pc}
.align 3
@ BB#1:
.data_region
LCPI2_0:
.long 858993459 @ double 5.2999999999999998
.long 1075131187
.end_data_region
.section __TEXT,__cstring,cstring_literals
L_.str: @ @.str
.asciz "%d : %g\n"
L_.str.1: @ @.str.1
.asciz "%d : %d : %g\n"
.subsections_via_symbols
Here is a sample with a variadic function:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
void func1(int i1, double d1)
{
printf("%d : %g\n", i1, d1);
}
void func2(int i1, int i2, double d1)
{
printf("%d : %d : %g\n", i1, i2, d1);
}
void func3(char *buf, const char *fmt, ...)
{
double d1 = 0;
va_list args;
va_start(args, fmt);
d1 = va_arg(args, double);
va_end(args);
printf("%g\n", d1);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double d1 = 5.3;
int i1 = 2;
int i2 = 4;
char buf[256];
func1(i1, d1);
func2(i1, i2, d1);
func3(buf, "%g", d1);
return 0;
}
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.ios_version_min 5, 0
.syntax unified
.globl _func1
.align 1
.code 16 @ @func1
.thumb_func _func1
_func1:
@ BB#0:
push {r7, lr}
mov r7, sp
mov r3, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, r0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str-(LPC0_0+4))
LPC0_0:
add r0, pc
blx _printf
pop {r7, pc}
.globl _func2
.align 1
.code 16 @ @func2
.thumb_func _func2
_func2:
@ BB#0:
push {r7, lr}
mov r7, sp
sub sp, #4
mov r9, r2
mov r2, r1
mov r1, r0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str.1-(LPC1_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str.1-(LPC1_0+4))
str r3, [sp]
LPC1_0:
add r0, pc
mov r3, r9
blx _printf
add sp, #4
pop {r7, pc}
.globl _func3
.align 1
.code 16 @ @func3
.thumb_func _func3
_func3:
@ BB#0:
sub sp, #8
push {r7, lr}
mov r7, sp
sub sp, #4
add.w r0, r7, #8
strd r2, r3, [r7, #8]
str r0, [sp]
adds r0, #8
str r0, [sp]
vldr d16, [r7, #8]
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str.2-(LPC2_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str.2-(LPC2_0+4))
vmov r1, r2, d16
LPC2_0:
add r0, pc
blx _printf
add sp, #4
pop.w {r7, lr}
add sp, #8
bx lr
.globl _main
.align 3
.code 16 @ @main
.thumb_func _main
_main:
@ BB#0:
push {r4, r5, r7, lr}
add r7, sp, #8
sub sp, #4
vldr d16, LCPI3_0
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str-(LPC3_0+4))
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str-(LPC3_0+4))
movs r1, #2
vmov r4, r5, d16
LPC3_0:
add r0, pc
mov r2, r4
mov r3, r5
blx _printf
movw r0, :lower16:(L_.str.1-(LPC3_1+4))
movs r1, #2
movt r0, :upper16:(L_.str.1-(LPC3_1+4))
movs r2, #4
LPC3_1:
add r0, pc
mov r3, r4
str r5, [sp]
blx _printf
mov r2, r4
mov r3, r5
bl _func3
movs r0, #0
add sp, #4
pop {r4, r5, r7, pc}
.align 3
@ BB#1:
.data_region
LCPI3_0:
.long 858993459 @ double 5.2999999999999998
.long 1075131187
.end_data_region
.section __TEXT,__cstring,cstring_literals
L_.str: @ @.str
.asciz "%d : %g\n"
L_.str.1: @ @.str.1
.asciz "%d : %d : %g\n"
L_.str.2: @ @.str.2
.asciz "%g\n"
.subsections_via_symbols
Thanks for test. I can make sure that no alignment is applied on ios. Then, you just need to fix two places. The first is CHECK_ALIGN in unpack_vararg and add &&!defined(TARGET_OS_IPHONE) for it. The second is the ALIGNED macro in call_arm.dasc. make it #define ALIGNED(x,align) 1 for TARGET_OS_IPHONE. Or you can see them from my lastest commit.
Domingo Alvarez Duarte [email protected] 于 2019年1月17日周四 05:39写道：
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying:
#include <stdio.h>
void func1(int i1, double d1) { printf("%d : %g\n", i1, d1); }
void func2(int i1, int i2, double d1) { printf("%d : %d : %g\n", i1, i2, d1); }
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { double d1 = 5.3; int i1 = 2; int i2 = 4;
func1(i1, d1); func2(i1, i2, d1); return 0;}
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions .ios_version_min 5, 0 .syntax unified .globl _func1 .align 1 .code 16 @ @func1 .thumb_func func1 func1: @ BB#0: push {r7, lr} mov r7, sp mov r3, r2 mov r2, r1 mov r1, r0 movw r0, :lower16:(L.str-(LPC0_0+4)) movt r0, :upper16:(L.str-(LPC0_0+4)) LPC0_0: add r0, pc blx _printf pop {r7, pc}
.globl _func2 .align 1 .code 16 @ @func2 .thumb_func func2 func2: @ BB#0: push {r7, lr} mov r7, sp sub sp, #4 mov r9, r2 mov r2, r1 mov r1, r0 movw r0, :lower16:(L.str.1-(LPC1_0+4)) movt r0, :upper16:(L.str.1-(LPC1_0+4)) str r3, [sp] LPC1_0: add r0, pc mov r3, r9 blx _printf add sp, #4 pop {r7, pc}
.globl main .align 3 .code 16 @ @main .thumb_func main main: @ BB#0: push {r4, r5, r7, lr} add r7, sp, #8 sub sp, #4 vldr d16, LCPI2_0 movw r0, :lower16:(L.str-(LPC2_0+4)) movt r0, :upper16:(L.str-(LPC2_0+4)) movs r1, #2 vmov r4, r5, d16 LPC2_0: add r0, pc mov r2, r4 mov r3, r5 blx printf movw r0, :lower16:(L.str.1-(LPC2_1+4)) movs r1, #2 movt r0, :upper16:(L.str.1-(LPC2_1+4)) movs r2, #4 LPC2_1: add r0, pc mov r3, r4 str r5, [sp] blx _printf movs r0, #0 add sp, #4 pop {r4, r5, r7, pc} .align 3 @ BB#1: .data_region LCPI2_0: .long 858993459 @ double 5.2999999999999998 .long 1075131187 .end_data_region
.section __TEXT,_cstring,cstring_literals L.str: @ @.str .asciz "%d : %g\n"
L_.str.1: @ @.str.1 .asciz "%d : %d : %g\n"
.subsections_via_symbols
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qtiuto/lua-for-android/issues/6#issuecomment-454952965, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJHwUgUL_gVjreYh3lrgJjef0H29k_tjks5vD5wBgaJpZM4aB3fT .