gcc/
* config/loongarch/loongarch.cc
(loongarch_flatten_aggregate_field): Ignore empty fields for
RECORD_TYPE.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/loongarch/zero-size-field-pass.c: New test.
* gcc.target/loongarch/zero-size-field-ret.c: New test.
---
g
This modification will cause the ABI to change, we are discussing solutions.
And we will give a conclusion at the latest tommorrow.
Thanks!
在 2022/4/25 下午1:57, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
Ping.
Normally we shouldn't ping a patch after only a few days, but we're
running out of time to catch GCC 12 milestone
On 4/25/22 13:57, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
Ping.
Normally we shouldn't ping a patch after only a few days, but we're
running out of time to catch GCC 12 milestone. And once GCC 12 is
released the patch will become far more complicated for a psABI warning.
And please note that the ABI difference betwee
Ping.
Normally we shouldn't ping a patch after only a few days, but we're
running out of time to catch GCC 12 milestone. And once GCC 12 is
released the patch will become far more complicated for a psABI warning.
And please note that the ABI difference between GCC and G++ should be
considered a
Currently, LoongArch ELF psABI is not clear on the handling of zero-
sized fields in aggregates arguments or return values [1]. The behavior
of GCC trunk is puzzling considering the following cases:
struct test1
{
double a[0];
float x;
};
struct test2
{
float a[0];
float x;
};
GCC trunk
