[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-04-11 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED URL|

[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-04-11 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Tue Apr 11 13:31:16 2017 New Revision: 246839 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246839&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 77333] Fixup fntypes of gimple calls of clones 2017-04-11 Martin

[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-04-11 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Tue Apr 11 13:23:48 2017 New Revision: 246838 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246838&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 77333] Fixup fntypes of gimple calls of clones 2017-04-11 Martin

[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-03-30 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor --- Fixed on trunk so far. I will prepare & test backports.

[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-03-30 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Mar 30 13:51:02 2017 New Revision: 246589 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246589&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 77333] Fixup fntypes of gimple calls of clones 2017-03-30 Martin

[Bug ipa/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

2017-03-10 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor --- I have proposed two ways to fix this on the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00535.html (I have not yet looked at how much back-portable they are but I do not expect any issues.)