https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #22 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20) > BTW, the wording e.g. i386 backend has is: > inform (input_location, > "the ABI of passing structure with complex float" > " member has changed in GCC 4.4"); > In this arm/aarch64 case, the wording can't be as specific, because it isn't > all arguments of this type, but only some arguments of certain type (at some > positions; for some types like those that have more aligned static data > members it is all such positioned arguments, for others, e.g. the templates > where the alignment used to depend on instantiation vs. non-instantiation > something earlier, only some), but you should consider using inform rather > than warning for consistency, and you should mention the GCC version where > it has changed and maybe also print the type in the diagnostic, so that user > at least knows what type it is that is problematic (but as it is not > something as simple as in the i386 case, there should not be a single inform > per TU, but about each case this is encountered). > > Richard said we should defer RC1 till this is done, do you think you can > have a patch for both architectures written today, tested over the weekend, > so that we could do RC1 on Monday or Tuesday at latest? I'll see what I can do but it's going to be tough to finish that by today. > Is there an agreement in ARM that what the patch does (for aarch64, and > similar one for arm) is what the AAPCS says? I don't see agreement being reached until next week. Sorry about the delay but it's just bad timing unfortunately.
