From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186403858D38 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 14:58:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 186403858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-75ebd39fac8so178011685a.3 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 07:58:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1686063496; x=1688655496; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=uZGd3CtyVRHniSRiKmrR9VngFl3/OkPZT5Aeljmfrbg=; b=N/F0UBoM9qWIuK7f0WIYxcvppNzs0Bsl/Uwe+w9zQfYvASOWisXfGSNPhE3W10kBGN Ir6+MwYFBSr4g+XoDhcwnzRq6taDPGCzhb1k7UveyVKAlEcsBKsrP0ppgUNUgF2Q/1g/ 4U/RzCLiB33GusPs223+n0HYCwPvOuZT9oaYHFdLJBnv+EkQEAWM3PQp2FwXNMOWH0sm j9f0sX9V9uyf7cFBP8itdZYe1bZy/vpVd6c0gNqDrePNaz4Eu3T0X6lWnpBoTiVfSlfO 7sWrGl9NZbUPwVwVwyhxFriXH3gflnE+xLbsqyhYpD92KvKJW4ViPADMD0cqwFBcvr/h W5hw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686063496; x=1688655496; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uZGd3CtyVRHniSRiKmrR9VngFl3/OkPZT5Aeljmfrbg=; b=f9izSU0jMbvA7Sgg+aoygrYX7OwMpQfASXGBvE/vIVUwNr970WWnl2vqz6p5W2g7+w p7RGO3jkNG7d5LHTTdoVd3aLo80ZCnMShSsullqeqWAD1veJDW+teeNqt85Shs9WComJ kmx1rV/S+Pg/rmBBFhbYqusID9HBg7pnSOsKf+uWIb87pMKtbm1tYQDmY7wPLpbyN/fs W3pSMM75gbB/ddEk2wz7BBTPbU6ngKJ+z6oa5X9y/aqKsXpYdA3xnllkS7MsHNMoE44u lOxXQmgNhz8MCKV4x/K42Eud/mm5waDo5Fe+1gx2cZM/IAO+QiX4lj7b7pW2oOhojhtj qCeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDz+FzGTdF5deBTo+vWKA+2P7kfEbEeiH90h5wj/bFcPSNJ1eMZY yG65wuGrd6fI8x29wdm7TccCL4eGfNWetMB3fik= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5KXHC71e2qqBxlJfkddDxG1SLLg2jRxnm2hgEir990PF12el+u1G2qgn1fxyqFzSgaye3uiLVHkzDZZS+0JYM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:8b8b:b0:75b:23a1:8e76 with SMTP id qx11-20020a05620a8b8b00b0075b23a18e76mr1982369qkn.71.1686063496383; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 07:58:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220524093828.505575-1-npiggin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andrew Pinski Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 07:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Passing the complex args in the GPR's To: Umesh Kalappa Cc: Nicholas Piggin , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Segher Boessenkool , Michael Ellerman , Paul E Murphy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:50=E2=80=AFAM Umesh Kalappa via Libc-alpha wrote: > > Hi all , > > For the test case https://godbolt.org/z/vjs1vfs5W ,we see the mismatch > in the ABI b/w gcc and clang . > > Do we have any supporting documents that second the GCC behaviour over CL= ANG ? > > EABI states like > > In the Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI Specification document > (v1.1 from 16 July 2015) You are looking at the wrong ABI document. That is for the 64bit ABI. The 32bit ABI document is located at: http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf Plus the 32bit ABI document does not document Complex argument passing as it was written in 1995 and never updated. https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/E500ABIUG.pdf does not document it either. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > Page 53: > > Map complex floating-point and complex integer types as if the > argument was specified as separate real > and imaginary parts. > > and in this case the double complexes are broken down with double real > and double img and expected to pass in FPR not the GPR. > > > > Thank you > ~Umesh