From: Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>,
Evgeniy Temirgaleev <e.temirgaleev@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/5] ARM64: Fix pass-by-value struct calling conventions.
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:27:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd7292be-1654-4e81-9f6d-9c2c41522683@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260530160409.4043089-4-skaplun@tarantool.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5844 bytes --]
Hi, Sergey,
thanks for the patch! Please see my comments.
Sergey
On 5/30/26 19:04, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> From: Mike Pall <mike>
>
> Reported by AnthonyK213.
>
> (cherry picked from commit c262976486e1e007b56380b6a36bfbea5f51d470)
>
> The FFI call to the function with the pass-by-value structure containing
> the HFA arrays works incorrectly due to the `ccall_classify_struct()`
> lacking the handling of the array case.
>
> This patch adds the corresponding branch to check the single-dimentional
> array. However, the multidimensional arrays are not handled. This will
> be fixed in the next commit.
>
> Sergey Kaplun:
> * added the description and the test for the problem
>
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#12480
> ---
> src/lj_ccall.c | 18 +++++++++++----
> test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/CMakeLists.txt | 1 +
> test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/libfficcall.c | 12 ++++++++++
> ...57-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua
>
> diff --git a/src/lj_ccall.c b/src/lj_ccall.c
> index b2705de5..104c9d34 100644
> --- a/src/lj_ccall.c
> +++ b/src/lj_ccall.c
> @@ -781,17 +781,24 @@ static unsigned int ccall_classify_struct(CTState *cts, CType *ct)
> {
> CTSize sz = ct->size;
> unsigned int r = 0, n = 0, isu = (ct->info & CTF_UNION);
> - while (ct->sib) {
> + while (ct->sib && n <= 4) {
The patch adds a condition that strictly checks a number of elements
with the same type (n <= 4).
I would also add a test for this with the following `n`: 3/4/5.
> + unsigned int m = 1;
> CType *sct;
> ct = ctype_get(cts, ct->sib);
> if (ctype_isfield(ct->info)) {
> sct = ctype_rawchild(cts, ct);
> + if (ctype_isarray(sct->info)) {
> + CType *cct = ctype_rawchild(cts, sct);
> + if (!cct->size) continue;
> + m = sct->size / cct->size;
> + sct = cct;
> + }
> if (ctype_isfp(sct->info)) {
> r |= sct->size;
> - if (!isu) n++; else if (n == 0) n = 1;
> + if (!isu) n += m; else if (n < m) n = m;
The patch also touches a logic for unions (here and below), and it is
desired to test it as well.
This change was not caught by our regression tests on Apple M2:
--- a/src/lj_ccall.c
+++ b/src/lj_ccall.c
@@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ static unsigned int ccall_classify_struct(CTState
*cts, CType *ct, CType *ctf)
sct = ctype_rawchild(cts, ct);
if (ctype_isfp(sct->info)) {
r |= sct->size;
- if (!isu) n++; else if (n == 0) n = 1;
+ if (!isu) n--; else if (n == 0) n = 1;
} else if (ctype_iscomplex(sct->info)) {
r |= (sct->size >> 1);
if (!isu) n += 2; else if (n < 2) n = 2;
> } else if (ctype_iscomplex(sct->info)) {
> r |= (sct->size >> 1);
> - if (!isu) n += 2; else if (n < 2) n = 2;
> + if (!isu) n += 2*m; else if (n < 2*m) n = 2*m;
> } else if (ctype_isstruct(sct->info)) {
> goto substruct;
> } else {
> @@ -803,10 +810,11 @@ static unsigned int ccall_classify_struct(CTState *cts, CType *ct)
> sct = ctype_rawchild(cts, ct);
> substruct:
> if (sct->size > 0) {
> - unsigned int s = ccall_classify_struct(cts, sct);
> + unsigned int s = ccall_classify_struct(cts, sct), sn;
> if (s <= 1) goto noth;
> r |= (s & 255);
> - if (!isu) n += (s >> 8); else if (n < (s >>8)) n = (s >> 8);
> + sn = (s >> 8) * m;
> + if (!isu) n += sn; else if (n < sn) n = sn;
> }
> }
> }
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/CMakeLists.txt b/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/CMakeLists.txt
> index 27de07ac..1d004591 100644
> --- a/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/CMakeLists.txt
> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/CMakeLists.txt
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ list(APPEND tests
> ffi-ccall-arm64-fp-convention.test.lua
> lj-205-arm64-osx-ffi-enum-arg.test.lua
> lj-205-arm64-osx-ffi-small-arg.test.lua
> + lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua
> )
>
> BuildTestCLib(libfficcall libfficcall.c "${tests}")
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/libfficcall.c b/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/libfficcall.c
> index fd2d4711..ecb21752 100644
> --- a/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/libfficcall.c
> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/ffi-ccall/libfficcall.c
> @@ -77,3 +77,15 @@ float test_float_stack(float f1, float f2, float f3, float f4, float f5,
> return f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 + f5 + f6 + f7 + f8 + f9 + f10 + f11;
> }
>
> +/****************************************************************/
> +/* Homogeneous Floating-Point Aggregate (HFA) argument. */
> +/****************************************************************/
> +
> +typedef struct hfa_float2 {
> + float v[2];
> +} hfa_float2;
> +
> +float hfa_float2_sum(hfa_float2 h)
> +{
> + return h.v[0] + h.v[1];
> +}
> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..bb500de1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val.test.lua
> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> +local ffi = require('ffi')
> +local tap = require('tap')
> +
> +-- The test file to demonstrate incorrect FFI pass-by-value
> +-- structure with an array HFA member.
> +-- See also:https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1357.
> +local test = tap.test('lj-1357-arm64-struct-array-pass-by-val')
> +
> +test:plan(1)
> +
> +local ffi_ccall = ffi.load('libfficcall')
> +
> +ffi.cdef[[
> + typedef struct hfa_float2 {
> + float v[2];
> + } hfa_float2;
> +
> + float hfa_float2_sum(hfa_float2 h);
> +]]
> +
> +test:is(ffi_ccall.hfa_float2_sum({{1, 2}}), 3, 'HFA float correct')
> +
> +test:done(true)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6746 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-01 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-30 16:04 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 0/5] Various FFI ABI calling conventions fixes Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-05-30 16:04 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 1/5] FFI: Unify stack setup for C calls in interpreter Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-05-30 16:04 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 2/5] FFI/ARM64/OSX: Handle non-standard OSX C calling conventions Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-06-01 11:40 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2026-05-30 16:04 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/5] ARM64: Fix pass-by-value struct " Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-06-01 12:27 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2026-05-30 16:04 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 4/5] FFI: Various ABI and calling convention fixes Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-06-01 13:02 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2026-05-30 16:04 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 5/5] FFI/MacOS: Fix calling convention for enums Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2026-06-01 13:07 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bd7292be-1654-4e81-9f6d-9c2c41522683@tarantool.org \
--to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=e.temirgaleev@tarantool.org \
--cc=sergeyb@tarantool.org \
--cc=skaplun@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit 3/5] ARM64: Fix pass-by-value struct calling conventions.' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox