This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Backport the recent ARM ABI patch to 6 (PR target/77728)
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:00:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Backport the recent ARM ABI patch to 6 (PR target/77728)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=polacek at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 166217934F
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 166217934F
- References: <20170427104442.GA4255@redhat.com> <58af194f-f901-848a-af0e-1738e36496f8@arm.com> <20170427124623.GY1809@tucnak>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:37:02PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > > + if (ncrn & 1)
> > > + {
> > > + int res = arm_needs_doubleword_align (mode, type);
> > > + /* Only warn during RTL expansion of call stmts, otherwise we would
> > > + warn e.g. during gimplification even on functions that will be
> > > + always inlined, and we'd warn multiple times. Don't warn when
> > > + called in expand_function_start either, as we warn instead in
> > > + arm_function_arg_boundary in that case. */
> > > + if (res < 0 && warn_psabi && currently_expanding_gimple_stmt)
> > > + inform (input_location, "parameter passing for argument of type "
> > > + "%qT will change in GCC 7.1", type);
> >
> > Should this be a real warning? The generated code, after all, is
> > potentially non-compliant with the ABI, and it might be nice if werror
> > could be used to catch this.
>
> But it isn't a bug or questionable thing in user's code, but a compiler bug,
> and while in some cases it may be possible to work around it easily, in some
> cases with more effort, in some cases it may be very hard.
Yeah, plus the principle that we shouldn't backport new warnings to release
branches.
Marek