From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 380823858D28; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:49:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 380823858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1666010955;
	bh=VAdZOrLHUDwpJN/RcSapOwLexB5gcFC+50oBd7iOymQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=D4byt5VP/bwrsbJGQ0E9MxduYBfeEZGoXkAoGAbdSg7N/o7u9ghmkjBG32fAN8jQ5
	 hxlSc1Glz9byCKPCjHQYkPMV8XQXUO63G25LHmtgE9hNxoQZJfP1Nmo3EiYlpWbkah
	 jeA/jf7WZe/FkZwqjg2eiZ5LceASwHQSBsxnswHY=
From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/107208] [aarch64] _complex integer return types
 could be improved
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:49:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107208-4-1Bzu9j6nC6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107208-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107208-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107208

--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to vfdff from comment #3)
> it seems releted to targetm.calls.function_value called by assign_parms, =
who
> return different behaviour for MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT and MODE_COMPLEX_INT. W=
ith
> the following changes, then choose a pair of DI for the int case
> ```
> @@ -20333,7 +20333,7 @@ aarch64_vfp_is_call_or_return_candidate
> (machine_mode mode,
>        *count =3D 1;
>        new_mode =3D mode;
>      }
> -  else if (GET_MODE_CLASS (mode) =3D=3D MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT)
> +  else if (COMPLEX_MODE_P (mode))
>=20
> ```

This can't be right.  aarch64_vfp_is_call_or_return_candidate is for VFP/SI=
MD
arguments and complex int is not one of those.=