[Bug target/94704] [8/9/10 Regression] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on s390x/s390

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94704

--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9612a4833d761e3beda083a3e4dc92feba3b01bc

commit r10-7985-g9612a4833d761e3beda083a3e4dc92feba3b01bc
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Apr 27 09:11:57 2020 +0200

    s390: Fix C++14 vs. C++17 ABI incompatibility on s390{,x} [PR94704]

    The following patch fixes the C++14 vs. C++17 ABI passing incompatibility
    on s390x-linux.

    Bootstrapped/regtested on s390x-linux without and with the patch, the
    difference being:
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t032
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t032
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t032
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t055
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t055
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t055
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t055
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t056
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t056
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t056
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t056
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t057
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t057
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t057
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t057
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t058
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t058
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t058
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t058
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t059
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
     FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t059
cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t059
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute
    -FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t059
cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
    when performing ALT_CXX_UNDER_TEST=g++ testing with a system GCC 10
compiler
    from a week ago.  So, the alt vs. alt FAILs are all expected (we know
before
    this patch there is an ABI incompatibility) and some alt vs. tst (or tst
vs.
    alt) FAILs too - that depends on if the particular x or y test is compiled
    with -std=c++14 or -std=c++17 - if x_tst is compiled with -std=c++14 and
    y_alt is compiled with -std=c++17, then it should FAIL, similarly if x_alt
    is compiled with -std=c++17 and y_tst is compiled with -std=c++14.

    2020-04-27  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR target/94704
            * config/s390/s390.c (s390_function_arg_vector,
            s390_function_arg_float): Ignore cxx17_empty_base_field_p fields.