public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/65358] wrong parameter passing code with tail call optimization on arm
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:59:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-65358-4-s2Yji7JTr8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-65358-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358

ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, I have a fix to check_sibcall_argument_overlap in calls.c that's supposed
to catch the overlap in accesses on the stack and correctly identify the
conflict. This detection has the effect of getting gcc to decide that it can't
do a tail-call here. I wonder, is this the way to go i.e. should we indeed be
disabling sibcalls in this case? I think so, if the ABI demands that part of
the struct is passed on the stack...


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-03-16 11:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-09  5:56 [Bug target/65358] New: parameter passing bug " hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-09  6:05 ` [Bug target/65358] " hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-09  6:23 ` [Bug target/65358] wrong parameter passing code " hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-09  8:10 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com
2015-03-09  8:21 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-09  8:29 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-10 13:55 ` jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13  2:11 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-13  2:14 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-16 11:59 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-03-16 13:55 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-17  0:04 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-17  0:19 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-17 11:01 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-19  9:17 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-19 10:38 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-03-19 10:44 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-19 15:19 ` [Bug middle-end/65358] " ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-02 10:08 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-04-02 10:20 ` jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-02 10:38 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-02 11:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 13:25 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-27 13:33 ` ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-28  1:49 ` hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com
2015-06-24 21:27 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-08-15 16:11 ` mikpelinux at gmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-65358-4-s2Yji7JTr8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).