From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-382644-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26801 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2012 09:47:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 26790 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2012 09:47:17 -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; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:47:04 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/52129] wrong code to pass parameters to tail call function
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:47:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed AssignedTo Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-52129-4-Q0PFuH6voE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52129-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52129-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00578.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52129

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-02-06
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-06 09:46:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 26580
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26580
gcc47-pr52129.patch

Untested fix.

Seems on this testcase pretend_args_size is non-zero, and argblock is
initialized for sibcall sequences as:
          argblock = crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer;
          argblock
#ifdef STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD
            = plus_constant (argblock, crtl->args.pretend_args_size);
#else
            = plus_constant (argblock, -crtl->args.pretend_args_size);
#endif
and what is stored into stored_args_map is relative to that argblock
(arg->locate.slot_offset.constant based), while the testing is done with
offsets relative to crtl->args.internal_arg_pointer.