From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
"Richard Biener" <rguenther@suse.de>,
"Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
"Alexandre Ferreira" <Alexandre.Ferreira@arm.com>,
"Torbjörn SVENSSON" <torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] calls: Fix up TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P handling [PR107453]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:25:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zd4bAR8cXrhlzRiK@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45ac2d54-21df-486c-a085-0a6c1f37a323@arm.com>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:32PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > 2023-01-09 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
> >
> > PR target/107453
> > * calls.cc (expand_call): For calls with
> > TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype) use zero for n_named_args.
> > Formatting fix.
>
> This one has been festering for a while; both Alexandre and Torbjorn have attempted to fix it recently, but I'm not sure either is really right...
>
> On Arm this is causing all anonymous arguments to be passed on the stack,
> which is incorrect per the ABI. On a target that uses
> 'pretend_outgoing_vararg_named', why is it correct to set n_named_args to
> zero? Is it enough to guard both the statements you've added with
> !targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_args_named?
I'm afraid I haven't heard of that target hook before.
All I was doing with that change was fixing a regression reported in the PR
for ppc64le/sparc/nvptx/loongarch at least.
The TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P functions (C23 fns like void foo (...) {})
have NULL type_arg_types, so the list_length (type_arg_types) isn't done for
it, but it should be handled as if it was non-NULL but list length was 0.
So, for the
if (type_arg_types != 0)
n_named_args
= (list_length (type_arg_types)
/* 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;
else
/* If we know nothing, treat all args as named. */
n_named_args = num_actuals;
case, I think guarding it by any target hooks is wrong, although
I guess it should have been
n_named_args = structure_value_addr_parm;
instead of
n_named_args = 0;
For the second
if (type_arg_types != 0
&& 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))
n_named_args = 0;
else
/* Treat all args as named. */
n_named_args = num_actuals;
bet (but no testing done, don't even know which targets return what for
those hooks) we should treat those as if type_arg_types was non-NULL
with 0 elements in the list, except the --n_named_args doesn't make sense
because that would decrease it to -1.
So perhaps
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)
&& ! targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named (args_so_far)))
;
else
/* Treat all args as named. */
n_named_args = num_actuals;
(or n_named_args = 0; instead of ; before the final else? Dunno).
I guess we need some testsuite coverage for caller/callee ABI match of
struct S { char p[64]; };
struct S foo (...);
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-09 10:32 Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-09 11:58 ` Richard Biener
2024-02-27 16:41 ` Richard Earnshaw
2024-02-27 17:25 ` Richard Earnshaw
2024-02-27 17:25 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
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)
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)
2024-03-01 4:53 ` [PATCH] calls: Fix up " 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=Zd4bAR8cXrhlzRiK@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=Alexandre.Ferreira@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.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).