From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29997 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 13:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 29989 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 13:59:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e31.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.149) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:59:21 +0000 Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3DDhZ9t025727 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:43:35 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p3DDxASR070480 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:59:12 -0600 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p3DDxAZ9014868 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:59:10 -0600 Received: from [9.152.224.47] (dyn-9-152-224-47.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.224.47]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p3DDx8iv014521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:59:09 -0600 Message-ID: <4DA5AC25.8030209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:59:00 -0000 From: Andreas Krebbel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lance Taylor CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de Subject: Re: [PING] Fix PR46399 - missing mode promotion for libcall args References: <20110413105432.GA5425@bart> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00988.txt.bz2 On 04/13/2011 03:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Andreas Krebbel" writes: > >> This fixes a wrong code generation bug for sw DFP: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00141.html > > Why do we need a new target hook just for libcalls? Why not just use > the existing TARGET_PROMOTE_FUNCTION_MODE hook? We could say that for a > libcall functype is passed as NULL. Only the SH cares about the > function type at all, and it is already prepared to handle NULL. But in order to preserve current behaviour all targets defining the hook then would have to be modified not to do any promotions if funtype is NULL. As I understand it a target usually does not want the normal promotions for libcalls since libcalls follow their own ABI. -Andreas-