https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 21 23:10:45 2017
New Revision: 255961
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255961=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83487
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I thought I've done it here by CCing relevant people. Or who else stands
behind the x86-64 psABI these days?
Anyway, I was looking at 0.95, seems newer psABI has more rules in there.
Perhaps we can say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
Please raise the issue at the psabi group.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My understanding is that GCC and G++ now handle those the same. But for the >
16 byte aggregates the psABI would need some rule, like say:
If in C++ the object has a non-POD structure or union type, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
There were discussions in the x86-64 psabi
group to make empty class passed the same
way for C and C++. We were waiting for
GCC to implement it before updating the
psabi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-12-21 09:44:34.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2017-12-21 13:04:03.172252517 +0100
@@ -8973,6 +8973,8 @@ ix86_function_arg_boundary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that it is valid C and C++:
struct __attribute__ ((aligned)) A {};
struct A a;
void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, struct A);
void
foo (void)
{
bar (6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I certainly didn't mean this kind of change, after all, it will also break
testing on what the alignof of the type is etc.
What I meant is in calls.c, when considering alignment of arguments ignore it
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(But it doesn't work because it breaks the "canonical types differ for
identical types %qT and %qT" test...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, this seems to fix it.
--- a/gcc/stor-layout.c
+++ b/gcc/stor-layout.c
@@ -1882,6 +1882,12 @@ finalize_type_size (tree type)
/* Handle empty records as per the x86-64 psABI. */
TYPE_EMPTY_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable thing to do to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
What sense does it make to align an empty struct anyway?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This actually reproduces with C and C++ ABI 12, too. The problem is this:
4096 /* Stack must be properly aligned now. */
4097 gcc_assert (!pass
4098 || !(stack_pointer_delta %
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Better testcase:
struct __attribute__ ((aligned)) S
{
};
void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, struct S);
struct S s;
void
foo (void)
{
bar (6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, s);
}
18 matches
Mail list logo
