From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-28543-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20521 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2003 13:16:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20496 invoked by uid 71); 28 Jan 2003 13:16:00 -0000
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030128131600.20495.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: c/9475: Wrong ffs results
Reply-To: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01582.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/9475; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/9475: Wrong ffs results
Date: 28 Jan 2003 14:13:37 +0100

 Hi,
 
 gcc thinks ffs gets its parameters on the stack:
 
 int f(unsigned dummy, unsigned x) {
     return __builtin_ffs(x);
 }
 
 f:
         .frame $30,32,$26,0
         .mask 0x4000000,-16
         ldah $29,0($27)         !gpdisp!6
         lda $29,0($29)          !gpdisp!6
 $f..ng:
         lda $30,-32($30)
         ldq $27,ffs($29)                !literal!7
         stq $26,16($30)
         .prologue 1
 -->     stl $17,0($30)
         jsr $26,($27),ffs               !lituse_jsr!7
         ldah $29,0($26)         !gpdisp!8
         addl $31,$0,$0
         bis $31,$31,$31
         lda $29,0($29)          !gpdisp!8
         ldq $26,16($30)
         lda $30,32($30)
         ret $31,($26),1
 
 But ffs follows normal C calling conventions (first argument in $16).
 Any ideas which recent change might have caused this?
 
 -- 
 	Falk