From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30512 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2002 11:56:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30498 invoked by uid 71); 26 Mar 2002 11:56:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020326115601.30497.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Nicola Pero Subject: Re: c/3711: ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_1, at function.c:3880 Reply-To: Nicola Pero X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00972.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/3711; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nicola Pero To: Richard Henderson Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, GNUstep Developers Subject: Re: c/3711: ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_1, at function.c:3880 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:53:03 +0000 (GMT) > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3711 > > Incidentally, I believe this test case to be in error. The type of the > argument in the caller and the callee is different. In particular, the > size of the argument is static in the caller and variable in the callee. > Whether or not an argument has variable size affects calling > conventions, and thus affects how the callee should find the argument in > varargs. > > A correct test case would have the caller have a variable sized > structure as well. Hmmm ... well this testcase arrives from a real example ... forwarding code in some advanced OO stuff which worked perfectly well with all GCC releases up to now (code from mframe.m in gnustep-base). If that is wrong, other code is wrong ... and well variable size structs are much less useful ... are you meaning that if I have int size = 255; struct { char text[size]; } SMSmessage; then I can't pass the SMSmessage to a function accepting a struct {char text[255]; } as argument ? So I can use SMSmessages in place of a struct {char text[255];} everywhere I want, but I can't pass it in place of a struct {char text[255];} to a function ? This is very confusing for users I must say. And it is not how it worked in previous versions of the compiler. Anyway - if that does not longer work on GCC 3.1, at least let me know how do we make our code to work with GCC 3.1. I think you understood what the function in the testcase "wants/needs" to do - which is that it can be called with an arbitrary struct (fixed size) as the second argument, and it is informed of the size of the struct from the first argument (which is just to say, a source providing the info at runtime), and it needs to be able to access the bytes in the struct. This is needed to implement proper forwarding of methods when there are structs. I guess there might be other problems then - here is an excerpt of code needing to return a struct of a certain (fixed) size, which is only known when the function is called - case _C_ARY_B: case _C_STRUCT_B: case _C_UNION_B: { typedef struct { char val[size]; } block; inline block retframe_block(void *rframe) { __builtin_return (rframe); } *(block*)buffer = retframe_block(retframe); break; } This works with GCC < 3.1. If what you say is true, this will no longer work with GCC 3.1, because 'block' is a variable size struct, and can't replace a fixed size struct as the return type. So - question - since this stuff which worked fine on all previous compilers no longer works, and you say the code is broken - ok then how do we fix the code ?