This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH for c++/86094, wrong calling convention for move-only class
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:08:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/86094, wrong calling convention for move-only class
- References: <CADzB+2niH+fNdufwCs6tzbjo1Ums=JJnCyriqB0df6YBX3DdwA@mail.gmail.com> <CADzB+2=A8GSacQnoc8tP-0iQp0-JJM5aneChepF_5CLi92fsOg@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:12:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> > The fix for 80178 was broken, because I forgot that copy_fn_p is false
> > for move constructors. As a result, the calling convention for a
> > class with a trivial move constructor and deleted copy constructor
> > changed inappropriately.
>
> This patch restores the broken behavior to -fabi-version=12 and adds
> -fabi-version=13 for the fix; people can use -Wabi=12 with GCC 8.2 to
> check for compatibility issues against 8.1, or -Wabi=11 to check
> compatibility with GCC 7.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 8. Do we want to
> accelerate 8.2 because of this issue?
I'd like to see the powerpc64le-linux __ieee128 long double support in 8.2
too, accelerating 8.2 because of this would make that impossible.
Jakub