On Feb 27, 2024, Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com> 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 indeed far too limited in scope. > On Arm this is causing all anonymous arguments to be passed on the > stack, which is incorrect per the ABI. On a target that uses > 'pretend_outgoing_vararg_named', why is it correct to set n_named_args > to zero? Is it enough to guard both the statements you've added with > !targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_args_named? ISTM that the change you suggest over Jakub's patch would address the inconsistency on ARM. Matthew suggested a patch along these lines in the other thread, that I xrefed above, that seems sound to me, but I also suspect it won't fix the ppc64le issue. My hunch is that we'll need a combination of both, possibly with further tweaks to adjust for Jakub's just-added test. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike back
