From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48800 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2016 12:49:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 48770 invoked by uid 89); 2 Sep 2016 12:49:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1249 X-HELO: mail-ua0-f174.google.com Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-ua0-f174.google.com) (209.85.217.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:49:28 +0000 Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id m60so176620204uam.3 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Iem7GL1qH9xCLHt0Ey0EEJnGM+gdYbR3RIg2UwpSZQ0=; b=YDixBY7Kl9rq60FOJlOlxPiQ1ti8yLA9kbuHaAYqxVM7n4YUJ6cDkdPQgSW99qu8jq NiGoVt7WJAFtcU9lrYu0wL75Rk02Afm5Ciya19HDTaqcBgUkNLmZqPW6Xu0SecJKQzDU pRnfxOr440OX2adq1rSPSfSfR0HRtxPF90T9AgNQorut5OhICUnhg6t3ogWUdjFDkyxI ULM3u/n+55q0W+2w1lM97ARHcDqebTOHUQaiFcjHXUFgGl8lBIySvim3etEseGOC0EsH u3xdapyT2RpbJWo81gtFFnjfX59AbyQyAcWJUqSCLsIVkq41kouaGLCVIZ82TBtFD9Ss XycQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOicLr2tXS9Kx4AcrbMPgp05Wpn3V/ZEbbB2LXkmwNnyDZxyiPF9n1XqszwKKOaX0tohbizk6W8iHcrbg== X-Received: by 10.159.41.231 with SMTP id s94mr12847267uas.58.1472820565558; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.21.134 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160902121157.GA14857@tucnak.redhat.com> From: Uros Bizjak Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH, alpha]: ABI change: pass SFmode and SCmode variable arguments by reference To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Joseph Myers , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Henderson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 12:09:30PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> >>> > argument. Passing _Complex float as a variable argument never >>> > worked on alpha. Thus, we have no backward compatibility issues >>> >>> Presumably there should be an architecture-independent execution test of >>> passing _Complex float in variable arguments - either new, or a >>> pre-existing one whose XFAIL or skip for alpha can be removed. (That is, >>> one in the GCC testsuite rather than relying on a libffi test to test >>> GCC.) >> >> And if it is in g*.dg/compat/, it can even test ABI compatibility between >> different compilers or their versions. > > It looks to me that we have no tests for _Complex float variable > arguments passing in g*.dg/compat/. There are no xfails for alpha* in > this directory, and these arguments would fail for sure for this > target. Indeed. The only scalar _Complex float processing is in scalar-by-value-4*, and the test lacks varargs. Uros.