From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
"Joseph S. Myers" <josmyers@redhat.com>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
"Torbjörn SVENSSON" <torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com>,
oliva@adacore.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] calls: Further fixes for TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P handling [PR107453]
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:23:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b4f43f8-3807-432f-b1a2-e0515ab198ca@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZeCpAhVThf3C6SKl@tucnak>
On 29/02/2024 15:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:14:05PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> I tried the above on arm, aarch64 and x86_64 and that seems fine,
>>> including the new testcase you added.
>>>
>>
>> I should mention though, that INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS on arm ignores
>> n_named_args entirely, it doesn't need it (I don't think it even existed
>> when the AAPCS code was added).
>
> So far I've just checked that the new testcase passes not just on
> x86_64/i686-linux, but also on {powerpc64le,s390x,aarch64}-linux
> with vanilla trunk.
> Haven't posted this patch in patch form, plus while I'm not really sure
> whether setting n_named_args to 0 or not changing in the
> !pretend_outgoing_varargs_named is right, the setting to 0 feels more
> correct to me. If structure_value_addr_parm is 1, the function effectively
> has a single named argument and then ... args and if the target wants
> n_named_args to be number of named arguments except the last, then that
> should be 0 rather than 1.
>
> Thus, is the following patch ok for trunk then?
The comment at the start of the section says
/* Now possibly adjust the number of named args.
Normally, don't include the last named arg if anonymous args follow.
We do include the last named arg if
targetm.calls.strict_argument_naming() returns nonzero.
(If no anonymous args follow, the result of list_length is actually
one too large. This is harmless.)
So in the case of strict_argument_naming perhaps it should return 1, but 0 for other cases.
R.
>
> 2024-02-29 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
>
> PR target/107453
> * calls.cc (expand_call): For TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P set
> n_named_args initially before INIT_CUMULATIVE_ARGS to
> structure_value_addr_parm rather than 0, after it don't modify
> it if strict_argument_naming and clear only if
> !pretend_outgoing_varargs_named.
>
> --- gcc/calls.cc.jj 2024-01-22 11:48:08.045847508 +0100
> +++ gcc/calls.cc 2024-02-29 16:24:47.799855912 +0100
> @@ -2938,7 +2938,7 @@ expand_call (tree exp, rtx target, int i
> /* Count the struct value address, if it is passed as a parm. */
> + structure_value_addr_parm);
> else if (TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype))
> - n_named_args = 0;
> + n_named_args = structure_value_addr_parm;
> else
> /* If we know nothing, treat all args as named. */
> n_named_args = num_actuals;
> @@ -2970,14 +2970,15 @@ expand_call (tree exp, rtx target, int i
> we do not have any reliable way to pass unnamed args in
> registers, so we must force them into memory. */
>
> - if (type_arg_types != 0
> + if ((type_arg_types != 0 || TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype))
> && targetm.calls.strict_argument_naming (args_so_far))
> ;
> else if (type_arg_types != 0
> && ! targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named (args_so_far))
> /* Don't include the last named arg. */
> --n_named_args;
> - else if (TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype))
> + else if (TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype)
> + && ! targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named (args_so_far))
> n_named_args = 0;
> else
> /* Treat all args as named. */
>
> Jakub
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-09 10:32 [PATCH] calls: Fix up " Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-09 11:58 ` Richard Biener
2024-02-27 16:41 ` Richard Earnshaw
2024-02-27 17:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-27 17:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-28 8:31 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-29 14:10 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-02-29 14:14 ` Richard Earnshaw
2024-02-29 15:55 ` [PATCH] calls: Further fixes for " Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-29 17:23 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) [this message]
2024-02-29 17:38 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-29 17:51 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-02-29 17:56 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-03-01 13:53 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-03-01 14:00 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-03-01 14:16 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-02-27 17:25 ` [PATCH] calls: Fix up " Richard Earnshaw
2024-03-01 4:53 ` Alexandre Oliva
2024-03-01 7:53 ` Jakub Jelinek
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=9b4f43f8-3807-432f-b1a2-e0515ab198ca@arm.com \
--to=richard.earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=josmyers@redhat.com \
--cc=oliva@adacore.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com \
/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).