[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-bugs
Subject:    [Bug target/114175] [13/14] RISC-V: Execution test failures on gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
From:       "palmer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" <gcc-bugs () gcc ! gnu ! org>
Date:       2024-02-29 23:58:33
Message-ID: bug-114175-4-2MKFp1ni8z () http ! gcc ! gnu ! org/bugzilla/
[Download RAW message or body]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175

--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> > So if I understand correctly, there may also be a problem where it's trying
> > to create that named first argument but also trying to pass it as a variadic
> > argument.
> 
> Ya, sounds like that could very likely be the source of the bug.

and to be a little less vague: I'd guess we're just treating "unnamed" as
"variadic" somewhere in the calling convention code, and that we're missing the
special case of large return values being unnamed but not variadic arguments
(even in variadic functions).=
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]