From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C153385840C for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:31:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4C153385840C Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CBE210DF; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from murzim.suse.de (murzim.suse.de [10.160.4.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34EF32C141; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:31:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Richard Biener To: Jakub Jelinek cc: Jeff Law , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4451q2s-551p-5p97-6n5p-353r49op73p3@fhfr.qr> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 10:31:50 -0000 On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > > > > > 2022-04-22 Jakub Jelinek > > > > > > > > PR target/105331 > > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_gimplify_va_arg): Mark va_arg_tmp > > > > temporary TREE_ADDRESSABLE before trying to gimplify ADDR_EXPR > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/pr105331.c: New test. > > > > Sorry, I have no idea if this patch is correct or not. > > Richard or Jeff, could you please review it instead? OK. Thanks, Richard.