From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-435118-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 36999 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2016 12:37:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 36990 invoked by uid 89); 2 Sep 2016 12:37:12 -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=
X-HELO: mail-ua0-f178.google.com
Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-ua0-f178.google.com) (209.85.217.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:37:11 +0000
Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q42so117990490uaq.1        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:37:11 -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=bApbpxFyG+oRYaeOa+9ju3bq6wgJHsGsgZd+KySybBI=;        b=dkKPbw5qzrMuRLXtqGM44dPA+x8/QrDC9DMLaLuHl/dTrjh3v2+jpFuWjXIm8X8FM9         U942kbhviAJKYoqfo7/YRWCzovf8pXyVUcyU6rCdYJhVF+YDW0vL4w/DvbCG3/yjH0mQ         twFjaSpaRPf/BhvVRDZqzB8LctatpvEiKV9q25+3KJBzkNYj4XzKso3sVqIe4lw5cwJ+         g9Vh4zby/kpLsw3LUWg/z/aSjVZq3/4Wxs2zZx9kVkSWtVH8lqejW9SoazGZvRaKhW6t         ShDNMocXkg7612DX8iJeScscPv6dhbIW+IGNhgTTTQLiPvQbr+01AJ5+pfRPwlriunug         tu1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwO3gsFdBTzWeteLapfi79fq8Ohnqs5wUnwdilU5NI9QHchiXXgdLUqhw8btjbTjdDm6j3HSyfbpP8UoaQ==
X-Received: by 10.159.34.50 with SMTP id 47mr12724189uad.50.1472819829615; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.21.134 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 05:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160902121157.GA14857@tucnak.redhat.com>
References: <CAFULd4atfy2fYm-LP3+7FEzMedFFrTP9FsEnJsaoEo+XUsZ8-A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609021206490.21412@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20160902121157.GA14857@tucnak.redhat.com>
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:37:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFULd4bLRuat3GhzXt_cUv2L8X6w0EJyziuyRQG9DBLxRYKmZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH, alpha]: ABI change: pass SFmode and SCmode variable arguments by reference
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, 	"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 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.

Uros.