On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 01:53:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2024, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > This one has been festering for a while; both Alexandre and Torbjorn
> > have attempted to fix it recently, but I'm not sure either is really
> > right...
>
> *nod* xref
On Feb 27, 2024, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> This one has been festering for a while; both Alexandre and Torbjorn
> have attempted to fix it recently, but I'm not sure either is really
> right...
*nod* xref https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/646926.html
The patch I proposed was
On 29/02/2024 14:10, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 27/02/2024 17:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:32PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
2023-01-09 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/107453
* calls.cc (expand_call): For calls with
On 27/02/2024 17:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:32PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> 2023-01-09 Jakub Jelinek
>>>
>>> PR target/107453
>>> * calls.cc (expand_call): For calls with
>>> TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype) use zero for n_named_args.
>>>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:54:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:25:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I guess we need some testsuite coverage for caller/callee ABI match of
> > struct S { char p[64]; };
> > struct S foo (...);
>
> Maybe the test below? Passes on
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:25:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I guess we need some testsuite coverage for caller/callee ABI match of
> struct S { char p[64]; };
> struct S foo (...);
Maybe the test below? Passes on x86_64 -m32/-m64, but I guess that doesn't
care at all about the named vs. not
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:32PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > 2023-01-09 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR target/107453
> > * calls.cc (expand_call): For calls with
> > TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype) use zero for n_named_args.
> > Formatting fix.
>
> This one has been
[resending, apologies, I accidentally CC'd the wrong person last time]
On 27/02/2024 16:41, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>
> On 09/01/2023 10:32, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On powerpc64le-linux, the following patch fixes
>> -FAIL: gcc.dg/c2x-stdarg-4.c execution test
>>
On 09/01/2023 10:32, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On powerpc64le-linux, the following patch fixes
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/c2x-stdarg-4.c execution test
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O0 execution test
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O1 execution
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On powerpc64le-linux, the following patch fixes
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/c2x-stdarg-4.c execution test
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O0 execution test
> -FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O1 execution test
> -FAIL:
Hi!
On powerpc64le-linux, the following patch fixes
-FAIL: gcc.dg/c2x-stdarg-4.c execution test
-FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O0 execution test
-FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O1 execution test
-FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/c2x-stdarg-split-1a.c -O2 execution test
11 matches
Mail list logo
