This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Committed] S/390: Fix MAX_ARGS value.
- From: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:35:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Committed] S/390: Fix MAX_ARGS value.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1465807102-8941-1-git-send-email-krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160613084322 dot GM7387 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <575E7404 dot 2010704 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160613090124 dot GN7387 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 06/13/2016 11:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Also, it isn't clear to me, are there any s390 builtins right now that
> actually have 6 arguments (my reading is that you don't count the return
> value into that)? I.e. beyond the bootstrap issues, is the change actually
> fixing expansion of any builtins (there is if (arity >= MAX_ARGS) check),
> or is the arity 6 case there just for potential further builtins?
No, it doesn't fix a problem with builtin expansion. I've only backported the mainline patch
because it was inconsistent and there might problems arise with warnings as well. I could also have
removed the arity == 6 case.
> My confusion comes from s390-builtin*.def using e.g. DEF_FN_TYPE_6
> which looks to me like actually 5 argument builtin type where the first type
> is the return type. Wouldn't e.g. gcc/builtin-types.def call it
> DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_5 (rather than _6)?
Yes. It is inconsistent to builtin-types.def. Not sure if it is worth fixing it.
> Also, where is e.g. __builtin_s390_vstrcbs (as randomly chosen builtin
> using DEF_FN_TYPE_6) covered in the testsuite?
I test the builtins with a script which generates the testcases from s390-builtins.def. The result
are about 10000 testcases I didn't want to check in.
-Andreas-