[Bug target/34281] [4.3 Regression] ARM: varargs broken with 64bit parameters.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-27 08:34 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-12/msg01313.html

is with the patch I've just checked in, without the arm.c part there were
additional FAILs for the newly added testcase, other than that identical
results.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34281

[Bug target/34281] [4.3 Regression] ARM: varargs broken with 64bit parameters.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-27 08:32 ---
Subject: Bug 34281

Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 27 08:31:54 2007
New Revision: 131196

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131196
Log:
PR target/34281
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_setup_incoming_varargs): If last named
argument needs double word alignment and cum->nregs is odd, account
for the inserted padding.

* gcc.c-torture/execute/20071213-1.c: New test.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20071213-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34281

[Bug target/34281] [4.3 Regression] ARM: varargs broken with 64bit parameters.

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-13 14:38 ---
Not sure this should count as a regression, since in 3.4 this was using
different ABI.  If you compile with -mabi=atpcs which matches 3.4, it will work
even in 4.3.
Anyway, I think:
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.c.jj 2007-12-11 00:23:29.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.c2007-12-13 15:26:01.0 +0100
@@ -17765,14 +17765,20 @@ arm_output_load_gr (rtx *operands)

 static void
 arm_setup_incoming_varargs (CUMULATIVE_ARGS *cum,
-   enum machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
-   tree type ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
+   enum machine_mode mode,
+   tree type,
int *pretend_size,
int second_time ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
 {
+  int nregs = cum->nregs;
+  if (nregs & 1
+  && ARM_DOUBLEWORD_ALIGN
+  && arm_needs_doubleword_align (mode, type))
+nregs++;
+
   cfun->machine->uses_anonymous_args = 1;
-  if (cum->nregs < NUM_ARG_REGS)
-*pretend_size = (NUM_ARG_REGS - cum->nregs) * UNITS_PER_WORD;
+  if (nregs < NUM_ARG_REGS)
+*pretend_size = (NUM_ARG_REGS - nregs) * UNITS_PER_WORD;
 }

 /* Return nonzero if the CONSUMER instruction (a store) does not need

should fix this, let me poke around a little bit some more and add a testcase.
I'll need some volunteer to bootstrap/regtest it though, no arms here...


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-12-13 14:38:11
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34281

[Bug target/34281] [4.3 Regression] ARM: varargs broken with 64bit parameters.

[daney at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-11 23:20 ---
Verified that it works on MontaVista build 3.4.3.

Still failing on:
armv5tl-montavista-linuxeabi-g++ (GCC) 4.3.0 20071211 (experimental) [trunk
revision 130777]


-- 

daney at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||4.3.0
  Known to work||3.4.3
Summary|[arm] varargs broken with   |[4.3 Regression] ARM:
   |64bit parameters.   |varargs broken with 64bit
   ||parameters.
   Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34281