On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 01:53:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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.
At least in my understanding, the only part of my patch that was being
discussed was the !strict_argument_naming && !pretend_outgoing_args_named
case with structure_value_addr_parm, I don't see how that would affect
ARM, given that it is a !strict_argument_naming && pretend_outgoing_args_named
target. In that case with the patch as posted n_named_args will be
structure_value_addr_parm before INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS and num_actuals
afterwards, I don't see any disagreement on that.
Jakub
