From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19077 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2015 11:52:23 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18738 invoked by uid 48); 2 Apr 2015 11:52:19 -0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/65358] wrong parameter passing code with tail call optimization on arm Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:52:00 -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-Version: 4.6.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-04/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358 --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #22) > (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #21) > > As this has been failing since GCC 4.6.3, it is not a regression and > > therefore Kyrill's fix would not be appropriate for Stage 4. > > > > It may be that the release managers make an exception for this fix, given > > that it can cause wrong-code generation on a primary target. Otherwise, I'd > > expect this to get fixed in 6.0 and backported as appropriate. Richard/Jakub? > > Yeah, I agree it's not a regression on the release branches, but we did have > wrong-code fixes in stage4 before (like for PR 65235). > My fix should only ever trigger in the case where we would definitely > miscompile otherwise, and should not impact codegen in any other case. > > I don't mind waiting till stage 1 and backporting later. Up to the > maintainers/release managers. It's fine to fix wrong-code regressions in stage4 if they are obviously safe.