On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 05:51:03PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Oh, but wait! Perhaps that now falls into the initial 'if' clause and we
> never reach the point where you pick zero. So perhaps I'm worrying about
> nothing.
If you are worried about the
+ else if (TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype)
+ && ! targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named (args_so_far))
n_named_args = 0;
case in the patch, we know at that point that the initial n_named_args is
equal to structure_value_addr_parm, so either 0, in that case
--n_named_args;
would yield the undesirable negative value, so we want 0 instead; for that
case we could as well just have ; in there instead of n_named_args = 0;,
or it is 1, in that case --n_named_args; would turn that into 0.
Jakub
