* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-22 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 3:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-22 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-22 21:52 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-31 3:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 4:30 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-31 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 03:45 -------
Leaving at P2, only because Cygwin is not a primary platform. (Otherwise, I'd
make this P1.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-22 21:52 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 3:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-31 4:30 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2006-02-16 11:31 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net @ 2005-10-31 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2005-10-31 04:30 -------
This is an i386 bug, not specific to MS windows target. However, it is only a
problem with -mtune=i386 -mrtd.
Danny
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-31 4:30 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
@ 2006-02-16 11:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 12:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 11:31 -------
I can reproduce this on i586-pc-linux-gnu with -Os -mrtd. As analyzed, the
failure occours with -mrtd if a call to memcpy is generated. The following
testcase fails for me with -mrtd and passes without it for 3.4.5, 4.0.2, 4.1.0
and mainline using the C frontend:
extern void abort(void);
struct st_t {
int m_i;
char m_ch[260];
};
void foo(int *pInt, struct st_t st)
{
if (*pInt != 123
|| st.m_i != 1
|| st.m_ch[0] != 2)
abort();
}
int main()
{
int i = 123;
struct st_t st;
st.m_i = 1;
st.m_ch[0] = 2;
foo(&i, st);
return 0;
}
Still using -mrtd is not common at least for non-mingw targets.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC target triplet|i386-*-mingw32 |i?86-*-*
Known to fail|3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 |3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5
| |4.0.2 4.1.0 4.2.0
Summary|[3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]|[3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
|Error to pass struct |Error to pass struct
|parameter when compile with |parameter when compile with
|mingw's gcc.exe using "- |-mrtd
|march=i386 -mrtd" flags |
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 11:31 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 12:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 12:29 -------
Milestone should be 4.0.3 pre agreement with GDR and Mark.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-06-12 15:08:24 |2006-02-16 12:29:22
date| |
Target Milestone|3.4.6 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 12:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 13:22 -------
The problem is that we do not honour the override decl for memcpy simply
because
for expand_call ("foo(&i, st);") we end up in emit_block_move_via_libcall which
builds yet another "memcpy" decl via expr.c:init_block_move_fn(). Yay.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 13:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]
------- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 13:25 -------
The problem is we cannot simply use (implicit_)built_in_decl[BUILT_IN_MEMCPY]
here
either because that one is still the internal one, and if annotating our memcpy
decl with __attribute__((__cdecl__)) we warn:
/tmp/t.c:2: warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘memcpy’
and keep our one in (implicit_)built_in_decl[BUILT_IN_MEMCPY], still creating
the user overridden one. But I have no idea how to get our hands on it here.
Still it looks like init_block_move_fn is completely wonky.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 13:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 13:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 15:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 13:34 -------
A similar issue is in PR11772 - we fail to account for -mrtd when expanding
calls to builtin functions or functions from libgcc.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 13:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 13:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-16 15:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 13:36 -------
It all looks like a mess wrt -mrtd, I'm not going to touch this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with -mrtd
[not found] <bug-22017-10808@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-16 13:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-16 15:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-16 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 15:50 -------
Reading the documentation for '-mrtd' I'm tempted to close this as invalid.
The
user is changing the ABI while still linking to libraries with a different ABI.
The fact that overriding builtins is not possible is a separate issue, but
that is already covered by 11772 which deals with the case of having a complete
-mrtd toolchain but still builtins are emitted without honouring -mrtd.
At least it's a duplicate, if valid, or invalid.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11772 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
2005-06-11 14:43 [Bug c/22017] New: Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
@ 2005-06-12 15:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-13 5:42 ` lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-12 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-12 15:08:24
date| |
Summary|Error to pass struct |[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]
|parameter when compile with |Error to pass struct
|mingw's gcc.exe using "- |parameter when compile with
|march=i386 -mrtd" flags |mingw's gcc.exe using "-
| |march=i386 -mrtd" flags
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
2005-06-11 14:43 [Bug c/22017] New: Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
2005-06-12 15:08 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-13 5:42 ` lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
2005-07-06 17:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:02 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: lyuzhou at 21cn dot com @ 2005-06-13 5:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From lyuzhou at 21cn dot com 2005-06-13 05:41 -------
I just apply your patch to mingw gcc 3.4.4.
But it seems failed too.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi,
> This is what is says in the comments above i386/i386.c:
> ix86_return_pop_args:
> FUNDECL is the declaration node of the function (as a tree),
> FUNTYPE is the data type of the function (as a tree),
> or for a library call it is an identifier node for the subroutine name.
> and indeed , the call to build_decl in init_block_move_fn in expr.c
> (where the call to "mmecpy" is generated) has an identifier node as the
> second arg.
> There appears to be a long-standing thinko in the test for library calls
> in ix86_return_pops_args.
> This patch fixes the memcpy call in the testcase on trunk. I'll do a
> bootstrap and regetest overnight. Could you test on 3.4 branch please.
> * config/i386/i386 (ix86_return_pops_args): Test the function
> type, not the decl node, when testing for library call.
> Index: i386.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.829
> diff -c -3 -p -r1.829 i386.c
> *************** ix86_eax_live_at_start_p (void)
> *** 1943,1949 ****
> int
> ix86_return_pops_args (tree fundecl, tree funtype, int size)
> {
> ! int rtd = TARGET_RTD && (!fundecl || TREE_CODE (fundecl) !=
> IDENTIFIER_NODE);
>
> /* Cdecl functions override -mrtd, and never pop the stack. */
> if (! lookup_attribute ("cdecl", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (funtype))) {
> --- 1943,1949 ----
> int
> ix86_return_pops_args (tree fundecl, tree funtype, int size)
> {
> ! int rtd = TARGET_RTD && (!funtype || TREE_CODE (funtype) !=
> IDENTIFIER_NODE);
>
> /* Cdecl functions override -mrtd, and never pop the stack. */
> if (! lookup_attribute ("cdecl", TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (funtype))) {
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
2005-06-11 14:43 [Bug c/22017] New: Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
2005-06-12 15:08 ` [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-13 5:42 ` lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
@ 2005-07-06 17:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:02 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-06 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-06 17:03 -------
Postponed until 4.0.2.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.5 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug target/22017] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags
2005-06-11 14:43 [Bug c/22017] New: Error to pass struct parameter when compile with mingw's gcc.exe using "-march=i386 -mrtd" flags lyuzhou at 21cn dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-06 17:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-27 16:02 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-27 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22017
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread