On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 06:45:41PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> PR target/102024
> * config/s390/s390-protos.h (s390_function_arg_vector): Remove
> prototype.
> * config/s390/s390.cc (s390_single_field_struct_p): New function.
> (s390_function_arg_vector): Invoke s390_single_field_struct_p.
> (s390_function_arg_float): Likewise.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> PR target/102024
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-1.C: New test.
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-2.C: New test.
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-3.C: New test.
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-4.C: New test.
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-5.C: New test.
> * g++.target/s390/pr102024-6.C: New test.
LGTM, except:
> + /* For C++ older GCCs ignored zero width bitfields and therefore
> + passed structs more often as single values than GCC 12 does.
> + So diagnostics are only required in cases where we do NOT
> + accept the struct to be passed as single value. */
> + if (!single_p && zero_width_bf_seen_p)
> + {
> + static unsigned last_reported_type_uid_zero_width;
> + if (uid != last_reported_type_uid_zero_width)
> + {
> + last_reported_type_uid_zero_width = uid;
> + inform (input_location,
> + "parameter passing for argument of type %qT with "
> + "zero-width bit fields members changed in GCC 12",
> + orig_type);
You could use %{GCC 12.1%} and refer to
gcc-12/changes.html#zero_width_bitfields
like i386 does (not written yet, but the intent is to cover the various
arch decisions there).
Jakub
