[Bug target/91710] [9/10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[Bug target/91710] [9/10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.3                         |9.4

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.3.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.

[Bug target/91710] [9/10/11 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 50421
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50421&action=edit
gcc11-pr91710.patch

So perhaps pass the old alignment to the caller and let that function verify if
it is really a potential ABI change or not?

[Bug target/91710] [9/10/11 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49813aad3292f7f2bef69206274da78a9a7116ed

commit r11-8226-g49813aad3292f7f2bef69206274da78a9a7116ed
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri Apr 16 20:49:33 2021 +0200

    aarch64: Don't emit -Wpsabi note when ABI was never affected [PR91710]

    As the following testcase shows, we emit a -Wpsabi note about argument
    passing change since GCC 9, but in reality the ABI didn't change.
    The alignment is 8 bits in GCC < 9 and 32 bits in GCC >= 9 and
    the aarch64_function_arg_alignment returns in that case:
    return MIN (MAX (alignment, PARM_BOUNDARY), STACK_BOUNDARY);
    so when both the old and new alignment are smaller or equal to
PARM_BOUNDARY
    (or both are larger than STACK_BOUNDARY, just in theory), even when the new
    one is bigger, it doesn't change the argument passing.

    So, the following patch changes aarch64_function_arg_alignment to tell the
    callers the exact old alignmentm so that they can test it if needed.
    The other aarch64_function_arg_alignment callers either check the
    alignment for equality against 16-byte alignment (when old alignment was
    smaller than that and the new one is 16-byte, we want to emit -Wpsabi
    in all the cases) or the va_arg case which I think is ok now too.

    2021-04-16  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR target/91710
            * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_function_arg_alignment): Change
            abi_break argument from bool * to unsigned *, store there the
pre-GCC 9
            alignment.
            (aarch64_layout_arg, aarch64_gimplify_va_arg_expr): Adjust callers.
            (aarch64_function_arg_regno_p): Likewise.  Only emit -Wpsabi note
if
            the old and new alignment after applying MIN/MAX to it is
different.

            * gcc.target/aarch64/pr91710.c: New test.

[Bug target/91710] [9/10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[9/10/11 Regression]        |[9/10 Regression]
                   |unexpected ABI change note  |unexpected ABI change note
                   |since r9-5650               |since r9-5650

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on the trunk.

[Bug target/91710] [9/10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.4                         |9.5

--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.

[Bug target/91710] [10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.5                         |10.4

--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed

[Bug target/91710] [10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|10.4                        |10.5

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.

[Bug target/91710] [10 Regression] unexpected ABI change note since r9-5650

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91710

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|                            |10.5.0
   Target Milestone|10.5                        |11.0
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
      Known to work|                            |11.1.0
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed in GCC 11.