http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #15 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> I think GCC is correct.
I agree. Thanks for working through the explanation with me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Greene from comment #13)
> I see that 3.2.3 4 (b) is talking about considering adjacent fields in an
> eightbyte. Is the intent to classify each eightbyte in an aggregate and
> then consider eac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #13 from David Greene ---
I see that 3.2.3 4 (b) is talking about considering adjacent fields in an
eightbyte. Is the intent to classify each eightbyte in an aggregate and then
consider each eightbyte separately for assigning argument
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #12 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> That is correct and Y is classified as INTEGER with 2 fields:
> NO_CLASS, INTEGER. The question is how NO_CLASS should be handled.
Since the "Returning of Values" se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Greene from comment #10)
>
> So Y should be classified as INTEGER and returned in (RAX, RDX).
That is correct and Y is classified as INTEGER with 2 fields:
NO_CLASS, INTEGER. The question is h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #10 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Y is returned as {NO_CLASS, INTEGER} in register. psABI doesn't
> explicitly say how NO_CLASS should be handled in this case. GCC
> simply skips NO_CLASS when assigning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Y is returned as {NO_CLASS, INTEGER} in register. psABI doesn't
explicitly say how NO_CLASS should be handled in this case. GCC
simply skips NO_CLASS when assigning it to a register.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #8 from David Greene ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> It is the matter of if the size of
>
> ---
> struct B { };
> struct X : public B { long p; };
> ---
>
> is size of long or not.
I don't understand. The class of conce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #6 from David Greene ---
Bug filed against clang to see what they have to say.
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19675
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #5 from David Greene ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Clang uses the same registers as GCC:
Ok, but that still doesn't explain why. Can you point me to wording in either
the x86-64 ABI or Itanium ABI that describe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
extern "C" int printf(const char*, ...);
struct B { };
struct X : public B { long p; };
struct Y : public B { X q; };
Y foo( Y& y )
{
Y temp;
temp = y;
return temp;
}
int main( void )
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #3 from David Greene ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Y is a non-POD.
So...?
The ABI doesn't talk about POD vs. non-POD. It talks about copy constructors
and destructors.
Can you explain what POD has to do with thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Y is a non-POD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61082
--- Comment #1 from David Greene ---
This is on Linux/SuSE/SLES 11.
16 matches
Mail list logo
