https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #15 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14) > > I think this means that the implementation of f must extend (if needed) > > because g did not sign-extend or zero-extend. > > If I read your psABI change right, this case is just fine, the upper 32 bits > of %rdi upon entry to f are unspecified, so no extension is needed. Agreed. I think I just misunderstood the GCC “GCC does [not] assume that” part in comment 12. The psABI wording change should not require any GCC code generation changes.
