On 16/07/15 16:00, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > >>>>> Now that we do have the problem, we can't fix it without an ARM port >>>>> ABI change, which is undesirable, so we may have to fix it with a MI >>>>> change. >>>> >>>> What's the ABI implication of fixing the inconsistency? >>> >> >> I think that's the wrong question. We wouldn't change the ABI to fix an >> internal problem in GCC. So the real question is what's the performance >> impact of changing PROMOTE_MODE to be the same as the ABI requirements? > > Perhaps, I really only wanted to get a feeling what type of changes > in code generation would result with the flip. I wonder why this ABI > implication was no problem back when PROMOTE_MODE and > target.promote_function_mode were seperated and the inconsistency > introduced. > > > Ciao, > Michael. >
Promote_function_mode requirements were new with the EABI. However, I think it's probably only recent changes in the mid-end that have exposed the problem. R.
