This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: x86 64 bit function argument bug?

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
Cc: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>, Stephen Biggs <xyzzy at hotpop dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 22:49:13 -0700
Subject: Re: x86 64 bit function argument bug?
References: <1052069756.5505.43.camel@steve.softier.local> <87issqx2wz.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> <20030504140515.GA4041@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au>

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 12:05:15AM +1000, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> - 	      if (TREE_CODE (inner) == VAR_DECL
> + 	      if ((TREE_CODE (inner) == VAR_DECL
> + 	           || TREE_CODE (inner) == PARM_DECL)

Ok.

> Actually this is against an old tree, I'm not sure if it applies
> against the current tree.

It does.

> Also the text of the warning should
> be different in the case where the function returns the address of
> a parameter rather than a local variable.

*shrug* It's still technically a local variable.  Just because it's
value comes from a caller doesn't change that.

> Also there should be a test case.

Indeed.


r~

References:
- x86 64 bit function argument bug?
  - From: Stephen Biggs
- Re: x86 64 bit function argument bug?
  - From: Falk Hueffner
- Re: x86 64 bit function argument bug?
  - From: Fergus Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]