https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101188
--- Comment #14 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #13)
> Also I don't have a test case for your scenario. I can reproduce the bug
> back to v5 on avr and maybe it is even older. As it appears, this PR lead
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101188
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108996
--- Comment #9 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Ulrich Weigand from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > > What is done on other arches?
> >
> > That depends on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108996
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Though, relying on DW_OP_entry_value is not reliable, if e.g. tail calls are
> (or could be) involved, then GDB needs to punt.
The only way a tail call could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108996
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> What is done on other arches?
That depends on the platform ABI. On some arches, including x86/x86_64 and
arm/aarch64, the ABI requires the generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989
--- Comment #22 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> PowerPC I think does, not sure about s390.
For s390x see here:
https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97970
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Weigand ---
The patch did not handle flag_excess_precision correctly. I've reverted for
now and will look into a proper fix. Sorry for the breakage.
