On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:14:55 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> The issue is that the size of the code buffer is not large enough to hold
>> the whole stub.
>>
>> Proposed solution is to scale the size of the stub with the number of
>> arguments. I've adjusted sizes for both downcall and upcall
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:14:55 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> The issue is that the size of the code buffer is not large enough to hold
>> the whole stub.
>>
>> Proposed solution is to scale the size of the stub with the number of
>> arguments. I've adjusted sizes for both downcall and upcall
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:15:10 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Jorn Vernee has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> RISCV changes
>
> Good.
> @vnkozlov Does this need another reviewer?
Yes, it is not trivial
-
PR:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:15:10 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Jorn Vernee has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> RISCV changes
>
> Good.
@vnkozlov Does this need another reviewer?
-
PR:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:14:55 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> The issue is that the size of the code buffer is not large enough to hold
>> the whole stub.
>>
>> Proposed solution is to scale the size of the stub with the number of
>> arguments. I've adjusted sizes for both downcall and upcall
> The issue is that the size of the code buffer is not large enough to hold the
> whole stub.
>
> Proposed solution is to scale the size of the stub with the number of
> arguments. I've adjusted sizes for both downcall and upcall stubs. I've also
> dropped the number of relocations, since
