From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <josmyers@redhat.com>,
"Richard Biener" <rguenther@suse.de>,
"Jeff Law" <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
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 18:56:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZeDFYnH3p5+b0qDv@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cf4097a5-7337-4145-ae6d-71ef825fbb42@arm.com>
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 05:51:03PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Oh, but wait! Perhaps that now falls into the initial 'if' clause and we never reach the point where you pick zero. So perhaps I'm worrying about nothing.
If you are worried about the
+ else if (TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype)
+ && ! targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named (args_so_far))
n_named_args = 0;
case in the patch, we know at that point that the initial n_named_args is
equal to structure_value_addr_parm, so either 0, in that case
--n_named_args;
would yield the undesirable negative value, so we want 0 instead; for that
case we could as well just have ; in there instead of n_named_args = 0;,
or it is 1, in that case --n_named_args; would turn that into 0.
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-29 17:56 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 ` 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)
2024-02-29 17:38 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-02-29 17:51 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2024-02-29 17:56 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
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=ZeDFYnH3p5+b0qDv@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--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).