From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444997-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31008 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2014 16:04:20 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 30938 invoked by uid 48); 27 Feb 2014 16:04:17 -0000
From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/60336] empty struct value is passed differently in C and C++
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:04:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-60336-4-9SkIVDLDMl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg02754.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336

H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > No this testcase is not valid at all.  See
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Empty-Structures.html#Empty-
> > Structures where it is documented it is not valid.
> 
> That only documents that sizeof is different for C and C++, the calling
> convention should be the same.  And it seems like classify_argument should
> already be returning 1 with classes[0]==NO_CLASS for both C and C++.  Why
> are we getting different results?

X86 backend has some issues.  But the C/C++ calling convention issue
affects most, if not all, targets.  You can try the test case in
comment 4 on non-x86 targets.