On 22/11/2022 11:21, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
On 22/11/2022 09:01, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c has been failing on
big-endian, because the _Decimal32 on-stack argument is not padded in
the same direction depending on endianness.
This patch fixes the testcase so that it expects the argument in the
right stack location, similarly to what other tests do in the same
directory.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR target/107604
* gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c: Fix for big-endian.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
index 22dc462bf7c..3c45f715cf7 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/aapcs64/test_dfp_17.c
@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ struct z b = { 9.0dd, 10.0dd, 11.0dd, 12.0dd };
ANON(struct z, a, D1)
ANON(struct z, b, STACK)
ANON(int , 5, W0)
+#ifndef __AAPCS64_BIG_ENDIAN__
ANON(_Decimal32, f1, STACK+32) /* Note: no promotion to _Decimal64. */
+#else
+ ANON(_Decimal32, f1, STACK+36) /* Note: no promotion to _Decimal64. */
+#endif
LAST_ANON(_Decimal64, 0.5dd, STACK+40)
#endif
Why would a Decimal32 change stack placement based on the endianness?
Isn't it a 4-byte object?
Yes, but PARM_BOUNDARY (64) sets a minimum alignment for all stack arguments.
Richard
Ah, OK.
I wonder if we should have a new macro in the tests, something like
ANON_PADDED to describe this case and that works things out more
automagically for big-endian.
I notice the new ANON definition is not correctly indented.
R.
