"Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
> Yes, that testcase looks like what I had in mind, but you don't need the
> dg-* directives (the defaults in gcc.c-torture/compile should be fine).
>
>> BTW, is it valid C?
>
> I think this should be considered the same as passing a type such as
> "short" that can nev
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
> > I think you should add a testcase to gcc.c-torture/compile, unless there
> > is already one that this patch fixes.
>
> Ah, indeed. How about the attached testcase?
Yes, that testcase looks like what I had in mind, but you d
"Joseph S. Myers" wrote:
> I think you should add a testcase to gcc.c-torture/compile, unless there
> is already one that this patch fixes.
Ah, indeed. How about the attached testcase?
BTW, is it valid C?
Regards,
kaz
--
--- ORIG/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr48767.c1
I think you should add a testcase to gcc.c-torture/compile, unless there
is already one that this patch fixes.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Hi,
The attached target specific patch is to fix PR target/48767.
In the problematic case, sh.c:sh_gimplify_va_arg_expr calls
targetm.calls.must_pass_in_stack with void type as its 2nd
argument which is unexpected by the callee. The patch is
tested on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu with no new failures.
A
