From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6241 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2007 15:48:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6183 invoked by uid 48); 27 Feb 2007 15:47:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070227154757.6182.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/30980] [4.3 Regression] Recent complex miscompilation In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg02960.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 15:47 ------- > I'm adding Eric too, maybe he wants to investigate the sparc version of the > issue. The patch which I was worried about causing a regression with respect of calling complex functions is: 2007-02-18 Sandra Loosemore * calls.c (initialize_argument_information): Pass original EXP and STRUCT_VALUE_ADDR_VALUE instead of a list of arguments. Move code to split complex arguments here, as part of initializing the ARGS array. (expand_call): Remove code that builds a list of arguments and inserts implicit arguments into it. Instead, just count how many implicit arguments there will be so we can determine the size of the ARGS array, and let initialize_argument_information do the work. (split_complex_values): Delete unused function. Now I don't know if that patch caused the sparc regression or not. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30980