From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5479 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2011 11:26:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5462 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2011 11:26:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:25:51 +0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/50325] [4.7 Regression] 76 new fails with rev. 177691 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:26:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325 --- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-12-01 11:23:41 UTC --- On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325 > > --- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe 2011-12-01 10:10:10 UTC --- > there is nothing in the ABI doc: > > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowLevelABI/100-32-bit_PowerPC_Function_Calling_Conventions/32bitPowerPC.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002438-SW20 > > that would suggest a different layout of bitfields in the two cases you cite. > > For varargs and K&R style function calls - it can be that double/vect values > end up with a 4 byte alignment on the stack, when they are also passed in regs. > (see PR 34311) - but I doubt that is relevant to this case. store_bit_field/extract_bit_field are not about bitfields in the C sense (despite their names). They are for setting/extracting a subset of bits. Any structure layout issue wrt bitfields has to be taken into account by the caller (so have any function-argument layout specialities). Richard.