[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjF0wjD4ko7MgrZ1wBZ9QOrQd_AnyhDDUJQ1L5+i-o22A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:12:27 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <ej@...i.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, rust-for-linux <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 10:34, David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> As Linus said, most modern ABI pass short structures in one or two registers
> (or stack slots).
> But aggregate returns are always done by passing a hidden pointer argument.
>
> It is annoying that double-sized integers (u64 on 32bit and u128 on 64bit)
> are returned in a register pair - but similar sized structures have to be
> returned by value.
No, they really don't. At least not on x86 and arm64 with our ABI.
Two-register structures get returned in registers too.
Try something like this:
struct a {
unsigned long val1, val2;
} function(void)
{ return (struct a) { 5, 100 }; }
and you'll see both gcc and clang generate
movl $5, %eax
movl $100, %edx
retq
(and you'll similar code on other architectures).
But it really is just that the two-register case is special.
Immediately when it grows past that size then yes, it ends up being
returned through indirect memory.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists