From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24204 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2010 07:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24080 invoked by uid 48); 28 Jul 2010 07:19:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100728071939.24078.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/45000] RX signed extened unsigned char or short return value. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "kazuhiro dot inaoka dot ud at renesas dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg03030.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from kazuhiro dot inaoka dot ud at renesas dot com 2010-07-28 07:19 ------- (In reply to comment #1) Hi Nick Thank you for your reply. Your example is OK. But I'm not clear. > extension being performed. Eg: > int bar (int a) { return a < func(); } If the func() is external function, output code is the following. _bar: push.l r7 mov.L r1, r7 bsr _func mouv.B r1, r1 cmp r7, r1 scgt.L r1 rtsd #4, r7-r7 If the return value is zero exteneded, "movu.B r1, r1" code can be removed. Is the explanation san integer conversion rank? > PS. See section 6.3.1.1 of the ISO C99 standard for more information about this > behaviour I think that my request is depend on rx cpu target like sh, m32r not m32c. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45000