This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org wrote on 09.04.2010 12:16:00: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: > > 2010/4/7 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>: > >> On 07/04/2010 15:45, Kai Tietz wrote: > >>> 2010/4/7 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@ > >> > >>>> The one additional comment/question I have is whether it is "on the 386" > >>>> and "the Intel 386" or just "on 386" and "Intel 386". Also, what is the > >>>> official name for that? Perhaps say x86, or is this specific to 386 as > >>>> opposed to later generations? > >>> > >>> Well, x86 or ?86 would be more correct in terms of processor-family. I > >>> used here the term, which was already used for fastcall convention. So > >>> I have no problem about modifiying it to x86 if people agree to this. > >> > >> I'm perfectly happy if you want to keep the wording as it is, because like > >> you say it just matches the language of the existing paragraph. > Technically, > >> it's all ia32 architectures, so x86 would be more precise, but > only change it > >> if you're willing to update the fastcall paragraph to match. OK > by me either way. > >> > >>> Dave: Thanks for catching this in target definition about > >>> fastcall/thiscall. But I don't think we should mention here > >>> regparm-directive. regparm is using different registers, > >> > >> Boh! Right, then I agree it would be better not to mention it; > the idea was > >> to make things clearer, not confuse them with an unhelpful "it's > just like X, > >> execept for A, and B, and ....." analogy. > >> > >> cheers, > >> DaveK > >> > >> > > > > I applied patch at revision 158155 with suggested corrections. I kept > > here in documentation old naming, but this is possibly something for > > an new patch to rename things here to x86. > > I get > > Running target unix/-m32 > FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr35504.C execution test > > now on x86_64. Wy did you amend an existing testcase instead > of adding a new one? And, obviously, thiscall doesn't work. > > Richard. > Hi Richard, this patch fix this. ChangeLog 2010-04-09 Kai Tietz <kai.tietz@onevision.com> * config/i386/i386.c (x86_this_parameter): Handle aggregate for __thiscall convention. Tested for i686-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32, and i686-pc-cygwin. Ok, for apply? Regards, Kai Regards, i.A. Kai Tietz | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain | (")_(") world domination.
Attachment:
thiscall_aggregate.diff
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |