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 393A83858C50; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:34:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 393A83858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713872082;
	bh=YwIVfkrmjG90QKSBK5l3n9S0fCJf6f1IylkAiNaVSow=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VH1tJuoRw9Ut8GOe/brsZJtVTpcrVfwzRuFf03tt1oqb5tYjlZPGemXZ4U2n5F4fK
	 J8IpUoG9gSFLPI4I/vIHo9lsmingxStG1R0Ay8SZ2Wf40vITRRyW+d3ZsLYvn0TEg5
	 YpeiCT3VoP0gZEA2ZPubjlMs1aOX6nJLTTqASbmU=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114416] calling convention incompatibility with vendor
 compiler for V9
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:34:40 +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: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
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-X5TqnebzGo@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 #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Rainer, what's your take on this?  Should we proceed and change the ABI on
> Solaris for GCC 14?

I think so, yes:

* Binary compatibility with the Studio compilers is pretty important IMO.

* Even though the SCD wording isn't really clear, the intent seems to
  match what Studio cc does according to the colleague on the spec group
  Jakub cited.

* There's no point in waiting beyond GCC 14, I believe: this will break
  compatiblity with GCC <=3D 13 no matter what.

* Besides, Solaris is pretty quick picking up new GCC releases these
  days, so they'll bundle GCC 14.1.0 not long after it's released, so
  the benefit will be immediate.

* I'm a tad uncertain about what to do on Linux/sparc64, though: while
  it mostly has followed the SCD, there are exceptions (e.g. sizeof
  (long double)) and no vendor compiler to be compatible with.  So
  making the same change there would only mean breaking compatibility
  with older GCCs (and clang) for little gain.=