I ran into an issue playing with tinycc, and tracked it down to a rather
weird assumption in the function calling code. This breaks only when
varargs and float/double arguments are combined, I think, and only when
calling GCC-generated (or non-TinyCC, at least) code. The problem is we
sometimes generate code like this:
804a468: 4c 89 d9 mov %r11,%rcx
804a46b: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
804a470: 48 8b 45 c0 mov -0x40(%rbp),%rax
804a474: 4c 8b 18 mov (%rax),%r11
804a477: 41 ff d3 callq *%r11
for a function call. Note how $eax is first set to the correct value,
then clobbered when we try to load the function pointer into R11. With
the patch, the code generated is:
804a468: 4c 89 d9 mov %r11,%rcx
804a46b: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
804a470: 4c 8b 5d c0 mov -0x40(%rbp),%r11
804a474: 4d 8b 1b mov (%r11),%r11
804a477: 41 ff d3 callq *%r11
which is correct.
This becomes an issue when get_reg(RC_INT) is modified not always to
return %rax after a save_regs(0), because then another register (%ecx,
say) is clobbered, and the function passed an invalid argument.
A rather convoluted test case that generates the above code is
included. Please note that the test will not cause a failure because
TinyCC code ignores the %rax argument, but it will cause incorrect
behavior when combined with GCC code, which might wrongly fail to save
XMM registers and cause data corruption.
Verify an immediate value fits into 32 bits before jumping to it/calling
it with a 32-bit immediate operand. Without this fix, code along the
lines of
((int (*)(const char *, ...))140244834372944LL)("hi\n");
will fail mysteriously, even if that decimal constant is the correct
address for printf.
See https://github.com/pipcet/tinycc/tree/bugfix-1
Philip