From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E60A4385E006; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:13:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E60A4385E006 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1585329195; bh=IV7C1d7+TojQCgxMxmOwtR8qnfWfTpQrRvfuE+GOIIQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RKuC4OkJ5TpkHGozri6OHbZjpqpm/zAFjE1XxbPmlg6O+hibLG/9T/YTYfQdfRdmQ Q6lC+zQojuPWaCStI5VEFotZ9OlZ5afagK41gA60DwV6NlsEu7CI3I5erHWCALNe1r COnp2lKG8EblYf+Ub//lX9+exiEO7IPlzf5QRhyw= From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/94359] new test case g++.dg/coroutines/torture/symmetric-transfer-00-basic.C fails Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:13:15 +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: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 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: cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:13:16 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94359 Iain Sandoe changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed| |2020-03-27 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe --- There are two cases here. 1) When the optimisation level is < 2 (where GCC does not normally tail-cal= l). - in that case, the specific call [ which is in the tail position, and AFA= IU should be tail-callable ] is marked as TAIL_CALL, MUST_TAIL_CALL (hence the complaint error: cannot tail-call: target is not able to optimize the call = into a sibling call, I suppose). 2) for O >=3D 2 where GCC would normally tail call anyway - for this, the coroutine code does not mark the cll specially, so for the= se cases it indicates that the tail-call is not being made in "normal" circumstance. the function signature is void actor (void *) and the codgen should be emitting an indirect call, followed by a void retu= rn=20 (the indirect call is expanding __builtin_coro_resume() [expansion happens = very early in the ME].=