From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id F379E385801B; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:02:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F379E385801B
From: "xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/102024] [12 Regression] zero width bitfields and ABIs
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:02:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102024-4-cxFOe1FRzT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102024-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102024-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:02:08 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102024

--- Comment #30 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)

> Also, what does LLVM do?

clang-14 agree with gcc-12 on the return values, as we expected (the ABI
documentation is clear enough).

But clang-14 treats arguments differently:

struct foo
{
  int : 0;
  double a;
  int : 0;
  double b;
  int : 0;
};

extern void func(struct foo);

void
pass_foo(void)
{
  struct foo test;
  test.a =3D 114;
  test.b =3D 514;
  func(test);
}

It puts "a" into $f12 and "b" into $f13.  So the behavior of clang-14 and
clang++-14 handling arguments with zero-width bit-fields is same as g++-11,=
 and
different from g++-12, gcc-11, and gcc-12.

I'm not sure if we should keep our current behavior, or change it to match
LLVM.=