From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-379452-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7551 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2014 19:14:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7541 invoked by uid 89); 2 Oct 2014 19:14:13 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:14:12 +0000
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92JE8N6030223	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL);	Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:14:09 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-113-33.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.33])	by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92JE8WD024062	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);	Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:14:08 -0400
Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1])	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92JE7Xw029227;	Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:14:07 -0400
Received: (from dj@localhost)	by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s92JE7ck029226;	Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:14:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:14:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201410021914.s92JE7ck029226@greed.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
CC: nathan@codesourcery.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
In-reply-to: <542D8F05.7090705@redhat.com> (message from Jason Merrill on Thu,	02 Oct 2014 13:44:37 -0400)
Subject: Re: __intN patch 3/5: main __int128 -> __intN conversion.
References: <201408132211.s7DMBGBu016387@greed.delorie.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1408212030310.16900@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201408212123.s7LLNPIQ018746@greed.delorie.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1408212131060.16900@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201408220515.s7M5Fhpa007479@greed.delorie.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1408221051550.5292@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201408221924.s7MJOcjB022631@greed.delorie.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1408222013390.16713@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201408260303.s7Q33nqm024601@greed.delorie.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1409012142450.7370@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201409302314.s8UNE7LP020494@greed.delorie.com> <542CC4FA.70609@redhat.com> <201410020352.s923qLlm002274@greed.delorie.com> <542D5FA4.6020401@redhat.com> <201410021641.s92GfTcV024373@greed.delorie.com> <542D8F05.7090705@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2


> > The test would only pass for msp430x (and fail for msp430, which is
> > the same target back-end).  Do I need to redo the big patch, or would
> > a separate one suffice?
> 
> Separate is fine.

Turns out it's mangled like this:

__int20 foo (__int20 a, unsigned __int20 b);

_Z3foou5int20u6uint20