On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 6:20 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/1/24 12:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > expand_call has > > > > /* Now possibly adjust the number of named args. > > Normally, don't include the last named arg if anonymous args follow. > > We do include the last named arg if > > targetm.calls.strict_argument_naming() returns nonzero. > > (If no anonymous args follow, the result of list_length is actually > > one too large. This is harmless.) > > > > If targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named() returns > > nonzero, and targetm.calls.strict_argument_naming() returns zero, > > this machine will be able to place unnamed args that were passed > > in registers into the stack. So treat all args as named. This > > allows the insns emitting for a specific argument list to be > > independent of the function declaration. > > > > If targetm.calls.pretend_outgoing_varargs_named() returns zero, > > we do not have any reliable way to pass unnamed args in > > registers, so we must force them into memory. */ > > > > if ((type_arg_types != 0 || TYPE_NO_NAMED_ARGS_STDARG_P (funtype)) > > && targetm.calls.strict_argument_naming (args_so_far)) > > ; > > > > For non-variadic function, the number of named args is one too large. > > Don't include the last named argument for non-variadic function so that > > the accurate number of named args can be used. > > > > PR middle-end/117387 > > * calls.cc (expand_call): Don't include the last named argument > > for non-variadic function. > I'm not comfortable changing this in stage3. I realize the patch was > submitted while we were still in stage1, but just barely. I'd like to > see this resubmitted early in gcc-16 stage1 and with testing beyond just > x86 since there's potentially ABI implications here. > > jeff
I am dropping this patch since it is no longer needed. Thanks. -- H.J.
