From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18151 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2004 20:43:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18132 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2004 20:43:31 -0000 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040612204331.18129.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040611160703.15941.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040611160703.15941.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/15941] [3.4/3.5 regression] new fails gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-11 and gcc.dg/compat/struct-by-value-1 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg01589.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2004-06-12 20:43 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] new fails gcc.dg/compat/s > > The 32-bit PA ABI has rather special requirements for passing 5-7 byte > > structs. See the comment in function_arg in pa.c. I believe the fail > > in test5 is caused by trying to pass a 5 byte struct. > > So is the PA FUNCTION_ARG_BOUNDARY function lying about the alignment? Well, it's not defined so how could we be lying ... The default is clearly wrong. We seem to have been depending on MAX_PARM_BOUNDARY which appears to be a relic. Let me see if defining FUNCTION_ARG_BOUNDARY helps. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15941