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: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub 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 17:26:25 -0400
- 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> <20180613210816.GN7166@tucnak>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I'd think we could put that support in an August release regardless of
what version number is on that release. Is it important that it be
numbered 8.2?
Jason