Hi Ramana, On 08/11/2022 18:20, Ramana Radhakrishnan via Gcc-patches wrote: > PR92999 is a case where the VFP calling convention does not allocate > enough FP registers for a homogenous aggregate containing FP16 values. > I believe this is the complete fix but would appreciate another set of > eyes on this. > > Could I get a hand with a regression test run on an armhf environment > while I fix my environment ?
I ran a bootstrap/regtest on arm-linux-gnueabihf, which ran OK (no regressions, new test passes). FWIW, I noticed some minor style issues with the patch, though: $ contrib/check_GNU_style.py Arm-Fix-PR-92999.diff === ERROR type #1: there should be exactly one space between function name and parenthesis (2 error(s)) === gcc/config/arm/arm.cc:6746:18: shift = (MAX(GET_MODE_SIZE(ag_mode), GET_MODE_SIZE(SFmode)) gcc/config/arm/arm.cc:6747:23: / GET_MODE_SIZE(SFmode)); Thanks, Alex > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > PR target/92999 > * config/arm/arm.c (aapcs_vfp_allocate_return_reg): Adjust to handle > aggregates with elements smaller than SFmode. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/arm/pr92999.c: New test. > > > Thanks, > Ramana > > Signed-off-by: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana....@gmail.com>
