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 6DEB53858418; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:58:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6DEB53858418
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709251114;
	bh=699YU+05VbH8IrL5f8rXIlYyVlTmFO443JBm1UDztm8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oJp35kajcPGpE/6SVzpJRkCA7Kcy6VQ2nIfNkIvFe5BKi31kvd0F6mgLiaPYuRRjb
	 oWt3/OAPf9hz2flQY8C8w9bxwr3kTFzsycG2G/0vDpFxBb9FLpLgQcmSYui19/3Z2x
	 8JyyFLlFDjbzV2EzrKtvM426eKmIN5Nv+uNCOh/Y=
From: "palmer at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114175] [13/14] RISC-V: Execution test failures on
 gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:58:33 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114175-4-2MKFp1ni8z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114175-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114175-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114175

--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> > So if I understand correctly, there may also be a problem where it's tr=
ying
> > to create that named first argument but also trying to pass it as a var=
iadic
> > argument.
>=20
> Ya, sounds like that could very likely be the source of the bug.

and to be a little less vague: I'd guess we're just treating "unnamed" as
"variadic" somewhere in the calling convention code, and that we're missing=
 the
special case of large return values being unnamed but not variadic arguments
(even in variadic functions).=