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 9383A3858C98; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:13:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9383A3858C98
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711534385;
	bh=9iwwcnvcsva8I7Ak3HbE7y+6asbtl8rjRxEWU0+j+4E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=nSjyicVuhZVcktTHp2sRwn7KAlEBi3kVGJFm9Zw889yBQICwC7kqlJ+PxxaIIKkNU
	 ZEuMvLF87uTchfQjVSSc03Um8SvNtEcz8jjf95sJbTxv9qfGDCF04CYuFYznCzq0Y9
	 9vjC+jRvBFXtzMHGblW4vVkTylMEQtBD2VoMEZpE=
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor
 compiler for V9
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:13:05 +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: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou 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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114416-4-7qO1IVy2Az@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114416-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114416-4@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=3D114416

--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Hmm, I just realized that you referred to the same sections, so my previo=
us
> comment might not make it clearer...

Yes, the fields in question have array types so the rules about scalar valu=
es
do not obviously apply to them.  This is a bit of circular reasoning but, if
the rule had been crystal clear, GCC would have implemented it at some point
during the last quarter of century.  My interpretation is that the writers =
of
the ABI document probably overlooked the specific cases of arrays, which ca=
nnot
appear as types of standalone parameters but can as types of fields in
structures.=