Jonathan Yong <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 4. Juni 2026, 15:52:
> On 6/1/26 18:46, Oleg Tolmatcev wrote: > > Am Do., 28. Mai 2026 um 16:02 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Yong < > [email protected]>: > >> > >> On 5/28/26 06:32, oltolm wrote: > >>> On x86_64-w64-mingw32, PR target/54412 is triggered when GCC creates > >>> under-aligned stack storage for AVX values that are passed, returned or > >>> materialized indirectly. > >>> > >>> Add coverage for the original by-value cases, for isolated hidden sret > >>> allocation, for callee-side by-reference parameter setup, for the > reduced > >>> real-world C++ temporary-slot reproducer, and for an aligned(64) AVX512 > >>> case. > >> > >> FYI the new set of patches caused a build error: > >> > >>> ../../gcc/gcc/function.cc: In function ‘void > assign_parm_setup_reg(assign_parm_data_all*, tree, assign_parm_data_one*)’: > >>> ../../gcc/gcc/function.cc:3396:21: error: comparison of integer > expressions of different signedness: ‘int’ and ‘unsigned int’ > [-Werror=sign-compare] > >>> 3396 | if (align > MAX_SUPPORTED_STACK_ALIGNMENT > >> > >> I missed pushing one of the patches earlier for adding the testcases, > >> but by the time I realized and pushed it, I saw you sent a new version. > >> > >> Please rebase against the master branch, thanks. > > > > I posted v4 of my patch, hopefully the last. I tested the patch with the > > testsuites of VectorClass, highway, xsimd, simde and Vc. There were > > not regressions compared to the MSYS2 UCRT64 GCC with the unofficial AVX > patch. > > > > I did test the first version of my patch with the VectorClass testsuite, > but I > > didn't realize the compiler was inlining all calls. Only after > > disabling inlining > > it became a useful testuite for my patch. > > Any updates with the rebase after the revert? > I will continue work on it tomorrow or maybe next week. I don't know yet. > >
