[10000truths]

> that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ?

The System V i386 ABI passes parameters through the stack. Perhaps that is what the author is referring to, although I wouldn't be surprised if he mixed it up with the x64 ABI.

[ivegotnoaccount]

In case it is talking about the x64 calling convention, there is actually some kind of an odd case where you would get something that looks like an argument was pushed on the stack:

When a non-trivially-copyable object is passed by value to a function, you need to ensure that through the lifetime of the copy, it's address will never change because the constructor may have stored address of some of the field (for instance, a pointer to a field). The way this is handled at list in the SystemV x84_64 ABI is that the object is created on the caller's stack, and a pointer to it is stored in a register, so just like if it was passed as a pointer.

I have seen several cases where a header would have an "ifdef c++" clause with copy constructors and destructors in them ("It does not add field so it should be OK, right ?"), which make the object non trivially-copyable, leading to clashing calling convention between C and C++ codes. I am curious about if this may be the issue he encountered.

[ivegotnoaccount]

Too late to edit so I'll just write a message here: The hypothesis written above would not explain the author's complains as he mentions he was able to fix it with a compilation flag, whereas I doubt the compiler would change non-trivially-copyable being handled as reference to a copy since it would break correctness.

[saagarjha]

The 32-bit Linux kernel uses a register-based ABI internally, rather than System V.

[inkyoto]

> The System V i386 ABI passes parameters through the stack.

No. The C/C++ ABI is quite uniform across architectures. The first 1..N (N is ISA dependant) parameters that can fit into a CPU register are passed via registers. The first input parameter that _can't_ fit into a register (e.g. a structure passed by value) is pushed onto the stack, with every other following parameter being pushed onto the stack as well. N+1… parameters are always passed through the stack.

[cesarb]

> No. The C/C++ ABI is quite uniform across architectures. The first 1..N (N is ISA dependant) parameters that can fit into a CPU register are passed via registers.

Here is the "System V i386 ABI" mentioned above: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/elf/abi386-4.pdf (from https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/). It clearly passes all arguments on the stack, and none on registers ("Function Calling Sequence" starting on page 35). That is the ABI used on 32-bit x86 Linux if you don't specify -mregparm (which the kernel uses); since the author was calling the compiler directly (which was necessary because the kernel makefiles only have rules for building C files, not C++ files), there was a mismatch between the -mregparm used by the kernel and the default ABI used by the C++ compiler, which was fixed by also passing -mregparm to the C++ compiler.

[inkyoto]

You are not incorrect, and I shall ruminate on why I had thought that the SysV ABI on i386 used %rax ÷ %rex as input function parameters without having to resort to the use -mpregparm. Thanks for the correction.

[chrisseaton]

> The C/C++ ABI is quite uniform across architectures.

How can it be? What about an architecture without conventional registers? And for example I work on an implementation of C/C++ that logically uses the heap for its ABI.

[inkyoto]

Quite uniform != completely uniform.

Especially when it comes to C (less so C++), it is a remarkably adaptable language that has been able to attune to a variety of vastly incompatible hardware architectures, including stack based ones, heap based ones and some esoteric ones as well. Yet, in the case of conventional, register based ISA's, the ABI has been remarkably similar: nonwithstanding actual ISA specific register names, registers 0…N (apart from RISC ISA's where storing into/loading from the register 0 is a no-op / zero constant) are used as input parameters and register 0 (where available) is used as the function return value (provided it can fit in); otherwise the return result is returned via stack.

[chrisseaton]

> Quite uniform != completely uniform

Don't know if you're a non-native speaker, but no 'quite' usually does means 'completely'!

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quite

[guenthert]

Only when used with non-gradable adjectives/adverbs (from the same surce: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/qui... ) (and yes, uniform, is quite non-gradable)

(non-native speaker here, quite frustrated about the quite different meanings of 'quite')

[chrisseaton]

'Quite dead' for example means completely dead.