Stack smashing when using FunPtr wrappers on ARM
I just got my unregistered LLVM-based ARM cross-compiler to a working place, which means I can produce any binaries which do no crash. Yay! However, http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7621 when I try to use FunPtr wrappers, something smashes the stack. Would others working on ARM cross-compilers be willing to try this test and see if it works for you: {-# LANGUAGE ForeignFunctionInterface #-} module Main (main) where import Foreign.Ptr foreign import ccall "wrapper" wrap_refresh :: ( IO ()) -> IO (FunPtr ( IO ())) main :: IO () main = do wrap_refresh (return ()) return () -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps? On 01/24/2013 03:44 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
I just got my unregistered LLVM-based ARM cross-compiler to a working place, which means I can produce any binaries which do no crash. Yay!
However, http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7621 when I try to use FunPtr wrappers, something smashes the stack.
Would others working on ARM cross-compilers be willing to try this test and see if it works for you:
{-# LANGUAGE ForeignFunctionInterface #-} module Main (main) where
import Foreign.Ptr
foreign import ccall "wrapper" wrap_refresh :: ( IO ()) -> IO (FunPtr ( IO ()))
main :: IO () main = do wrap_refresh (return ()) return ()
Somebody claiming to be Nathan Hüsken wrote:
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps?
This is your normal (registered) build with llvm-3.2, yes? I am building one against llvm-3.0 just now and if it fails will try llvm-3.2 -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph
On 01/24/13 04:51 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Nathan Hüsken wrote:
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps?
This is your normal (registered) build with llvm-3.2, yes?
I am building one against llvm-3.0 just now and if it fails will try llvm-3.2
Perhaps, the difference is not in llvm, but in registerised versus unregisterised build? Stephen, honestly speaking, why are you going unregisterised route? Isn't it possible for you to use registerised build? Thanks, Karel
Somebody claiming to be Karel Gardas wrote:
On 01/24/13 04:51 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Nathan Hüsken wrote:
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps? I am building one against llvm-3.0 just now and if it fails will try llvm-3.2
Stephen, honestly speaking, why are you going unregisterised route? Isn't it possible for you to use registerised build?
I'm trying an unregisterised build because until this morning that was the only kind anyone had ever made work without producing segfaulting binaries. Now that Nathan has additionally had success with a registered build, I am going to try that some more :) -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph
On 01/24/13 05:04 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Karel Gardas wrote:
On 01/24/13 04:51 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Nathan Hüsken wrote:
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps? I am building one against llvm-3.0 just now and if it fails will try llvm-3.2
Stephen, honestly speaking, why are you going unregisterised route? Isn't it possible for you to use registerised build?
I'm trying an unregisterised build because until this morning that was the only kind anyone had ever made work without producing segfaulting binaries. Now that Nathan has additionally had success with a registered build, I am going to try that some more :)
Good! I don't follow cross-compilation to ARM that much, but native arm-linux compiles also well here... Karel
On 01/24/2013 04:51 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Somebody claiming to be Nathan Hüsken wrote:
I tried it here with android. It works, no segfault. I have used llvm-3.2, maybe that helps?
This is your normal (registered) build with llvm-3.2, yes?
Yes that is correct. It is a quick-llvm build.
I am building one against llvm-3.0 just now and if it fails will try llvm-3.2
participants (3)
-
Karel Gardas -
Nathan Hüsken -
Stephen Paul Weber