Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI

[Kugan]

This issue also remains in 4.9 and 5.0 branches. Is this OK to backport
to the release branches.

Thanks,
Kugan

On 02/12/15 10:00, Kugan wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2015-11-18  Kugan Vivekanandarajah  <kuganv@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> 	PR target/68390
>>> 	* config/arm/arm.c (arm_function_ok_for_sibcall): Get function type
>>> 	for indirect function call.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2015-11-18  Kugan Vivekanandarajah  <kuganv@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> 	PR target/68390
>>> 	* gcc.target/arm/PR68390.c: New test.
>>>
>>
>> s/PR/pr in the test name and put this in gcc.c-torture/execute instead - there is nothing ARM specific about the test. Tests in gcc.target/arm should really only be architecture specific. This isn't.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>> index a379121..0dae7da 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>> @@ -6680,8 +6680,13 @@ arm_function_ok_for_sibcall (tree decl, tree exp)
>>>  	 a VFP register but then need to transfer it to a core
>>>  	 register.  */
>>>        rtx a, b;
>>> +      tree fn_decl = decl;
>>
>> Call it decl_or_type instead - it's really that ... 
>>
>>>  
>>> -      a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), decl, false);
>>> +      /* If it is an indirect function pointer, get the function type.  */
>>> +      if (!decl)
>>> +	fn_decl = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_FN (exp)));
>>> +
>>
>> This is probably just my mail client - but please watch out for indentation.
>>
>>> +      a = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (exp), fn_decl, false);
>>>        b = arm_function_value (TREE_TYPE (DECL_RESULT (cfun->decl)),
>>>  			      cfun->decl, false);
>>>        if (!rtx_equal_p (a, b))
>>
>>
>> OK with those changes.
>>
>> Ramana
>>

>