Re: Calling c++ functions returning non-pod types

[Philip Ashmore <contact at philipashmore dot com>]

On 21/02/13 15:19, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 01:29 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
> > I think a better option would be to tell libffi that the return type is
> > a "non-pod" and let it jump the hoops appropriate for the architecture -
> > am I correct in guessing that my approach isn't portable?
>
> Sort of.  There is a standardish C++ ABI known for reasons too arcane to
> go into as the Itanium C++ ABI
> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html
>
> However, putting all this stuff into libffi would be too much IMO.  You
> could think of defining a C++ layer that calls libffi.
if only because libffi doesn't create temporaries for ignored return values.
I guess I'm going to have to define a portability layer myself then.

Does/could libffi define macro I could use to determine the c++ ABI?

The next thing I'd need is a page of docs for all the c++ ABIs for the c 
ABIs that libffi supports.
> Andrew.
If you could reply with such a list that would be great - I'll push 
ahead with the platform I'm on now - Debian sid amd64.

Philip