On 11/22/22 12:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote:


On 22/11/2022 11:21, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
On 22/11/2022 09:01, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c has been failing on
big-endian, because the _Decimal32 on-stack argument is not padded in
the same direction depending on endianness.

This patch fixes the testcase so that it expects the argument in the
right stack location, similarly to what other tests do in the same
directory.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

    PR target/107604
    * gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c: Fix for big-endian.
---
   gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c | 4 ++++
   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
index 22dc462bf7c..3c45f715cf7 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ struct z b = { 9.0dd, 10.0dd, 11.0dd, 12.0dd };
     ANON(struct z, a, D1)
     ANON(struct z, b, STACK)
     ANON(int , 5, W0)
+#ifndef __AAPCS64_BIG_ENDIAN__
     ANON(_Decimal32, f1, STACK+32) /* Note: no promotion to _Decimal64.  */
+#else
+  ANON(_Decimal32, f1, STACK+36) /* Note: no promotion to _Decimal64.  */
+#endif
     LAST_ANON(_Decimal64, 0.5dd, STACK+40)
   #endif

Why would a Decimal32 change stack placement based on the endianness?
Isn't it a 4-byte object?

Yes, but PARM_BOUNDARY (64) sets a minimum alignment for all stack arguments.

Richard

Ah, OK.

Indeed, it was not immediately obvious to me either when looking at aarch64_layout_arg. aarch64_function_arg_padding comes into play, too.


I wonder if we should have a new macro in the tests, something like ANON_PADDED to describe this case and that works things out more automagically for big-endian.
Maybe, there are quite a few tests under aapcs64 which have a similar
#ifndef __AAPCS64_BIG_ENDIAN__


I notice the new ANON definition is not correctly indented.

R.

Reply via email to