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 D0E33384AB57; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:31:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D0E33384AB57
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1713943906;
	bh=/VEcHXwauAnW+FQZxIgRzvwRad7Oi/jKy5N883+SVcU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=HcQ/gYlGNG5U+YqurjSVm3gdHObBIWB+F7uFIzjvfIDw45/xv9qYKngqt/kDhbUol
	 WhUdTlDgny4AhLwAc34Q5Hc2YUbB4A10znJwmSzXgqgxI8ayss+JLbAus+DSRIinmc
	 0NSpkMFSEeKBB4JwfVT1lvEg5y04uJOFHJURjUcU=
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:31:45 +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-oUEW3pA9Kq@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 #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot =
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better=
 do
> nothing for other platforms at this point.

Right, I forgot that there are others (and I cannot test any of them at
this point; I don't even know if current BSDs still support SPARC at all).

> Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testing cycle of the=
 above
> tentative fix?  It only affects the 64-bit ABI so a sparc64/sparcv9 one w=
ould
> be sufficient (Unfortunately I no longer have access to my SPARC/Solaris =
setup
> and haven't tried the Compile Farm yet).

Sure: I've kept one half of the T8-1 hosting the new Solaris 11.4/SPARC
cfarm node to myself ;-)  I've also got a Linux/sparc64 LDom around
since the cfarm instance has been very unstable lately.=