https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93589
--- Comment #2 from Lokesh Janghel ---
>Note your example code does not match the warning message you have in comment
>#0.
Sorry, I used some reduce test case. here is the correct one:
$ g++ -Wconversion test.cpp
test.cpp: In instantiation of
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lokeshjanghel91 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47780&action=edit
Run the attached fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889
--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Janghel ---
Is there any target hooks for alloca? Should we do the same like
__builtin_alloca_with_align (array allocation) or we assume the problem as a
target based (prologue/epilogue optimization) issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
Lokesh Janghel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lokeshjanghel91 at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85667
--- Comment #5 from Lokesh Janghel ---
>>I think we should check if type is aggregate before we return in eax and
leave xmm0 for float and double.
>>break;
>>+ case 8:
>>+ case 4:
>>+ if (valtype != NULL_TREE && AGGREGA
