https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv, loongarch, x86_64|riscv, loongarch, x86_64,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #25 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:218d17496122abe1fd831bd003f129310b32ca83
commit r14-9503-g218d17496122abe1fd831bd003f129310b32ca83
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57714
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57714=edit
gcc14-pr114175.patch
Untested x86_64 fix.
Given the r13-3549 change, I'd guess most likely aarch64, alpha, arc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|riscv, loongarch|riscv, loongarch, x86_64
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #22 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #21)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #20)
> > Also failing on LoongArch.
>
> The testcase from comment 19 or the test?
>
> Not sure if we should move the comment 19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #21 from Sam James ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #20)
> Also failing on LoongArch.
The testcase from comment 19 or the test?
Not sure if we should move the comment 19 issue into its own PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #19 from Edwin Lu ---
While debugging, I found that this testcase also breaks on x86_64 when
optimizations are enabled (-O1 -> -O3).
Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/ecs5MPds8
There may be other targets that fail as well. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> > So if I understand correctly, there may also be a problem where it's trying
> > to create that named first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #17 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to palmer from comment #15)
> > It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
> >
> > $ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #16 from Edwin Lu ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #15)
> It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
>
> $ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
> /* Test C23 variadic functions with no named parameters,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #15 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
$ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
/* Test C23 variadic functions with no named parameters, or last named
parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe not, feels like a scheduling change:
@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ f:
mv s0,a0
sw a2,1064(sp)
sw a3,1068(sp)
- sw a0,1056(sp)
sw a1,1060(sp)
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Maybe
2024-02-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/114175
* function.cc (assign_parms): Only call assign_parms_setup_varargs
early for TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P functions if fnargs is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
#3 0x00010f00 in main () at
../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c:188
in comment #c0 is the abort after the f call.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The arguments are passed in by the caller in a0 (the hidden struct pointer
> or explicit in the other one), a1 (1), a2+a3 (2.0), a4 (3), a5+a6 (4.0).
Actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess somebody should read the psABI, figure out whether it is passed right on
the caller side (without the patch or with it) or callee and debug afterwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14] RISC-V: Execution test |[13/14] RISC-V: Execution
20 matches
Mail list logo
