From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30002385840A for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:31:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 30002385840A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 30002385840A Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709109088; cv=none; b=vEXhstwtiEPVB11qqfQB8lUzczX3/0DPmMx7jb0DjpNJeLaI/vQWT/fMW6t1y761aSkAQS5X5V2SgeGiLzIcDk8IFZqJsuXcMsjTIsCPbqRi7VHaAWKCJaugCfDkmb+65jirtkCFJDcYYcsvvRg0hGAX/M1CH/xFBIjV7Ys6efY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1709109088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eHVoYmSQATgXP4yYpcQs3k7TM0n//+RvI8Gw2u1UAiQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=JNYssP9eYYKb44nhGyatCk4jmcO0TVH/6HlEfU+wfoFA/ZEpGOIotSZ6Yo+q41DCMIE+BJDRxlkhiNE0YZmEpXmIubQq16nqVm3gXCjpP0JVIzVdemGxm72tUja2vJ4ax9L8+QfnivVTUxuA4SjcuvTJZA98Z5ZlsJWYzXdOkAo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709109083; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=30FIJwklh16s81Ns0EZXZ05gK7YAbzqagJgsEQvu8Xs=; b=OEMWSkYdfcdIPF4Eo4yLhemk6ZbmuV1tYuI6oL1lXLL6LeBMGNoclh8Hx8/FxXz6wXesew bdtluamycJ3txck8nvq/vGzGvsgDRHAICosHrXcs+w783xoSvb8iVapnJQC34tjnTJ8XQ1 bei8iDeZsltvV5U1mJdlm4c5YuU7TZk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-659-0ke80FwjPPuijlsgeZZREg-1; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 03:31:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 0ke80FwjPPuijlsgeZZREg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F939185A782; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A6541121306; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 41S8VHYo2997606 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:31:18 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 41S8VFYF2997605; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:31:15 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:31:15 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Earnshaw , "Joseph S. Myers" , Richard Biener , Jeff Law , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Alexandre Ferreira , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Torbj=F6rn?= SVENSSON Subject: Re: [PATCH] calls: Fix up TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P handling [PR107453] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <45ac2d54-21df-486c-a085-0a6c1f37a323@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_MANYTO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:54:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 06:25:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > I guess we need some testsuite coverage for caller/callee ABI match of > > struct S { char p[64]; }; > > struct S foo (...); > > Maybe the test below? Passes on x86_64 -m32/-m64, but I guess that doesn't > care at all about the named vs. not named distinction. > The test is a copy of c23-stdarg-4.c, just with all the functions returning > a large struct. > > 2024-02-27 Jakub Jelinek > > * gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c: New test. I've committed the testcase to trunk now as obvious, so that we can see what targets are broken. Jakub