On 10/30/2015 02:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Steve Ellcey <sell...@imgtec.com> wrote: >> So should __satfractqiuhq be dealing with the fact that the argument 'a' >> may not have been sign extend in the correct way? > > No. GCC should ensure libcalls (yes, they are speical for some non-obvious > reason) always adhere to the platform ABI at the caller side. > > Not sure why the libcall path doesn't (well, I gues it doesn't) adhere > to FUNCTION_VALUE and friends. History maybe (or maybe the > idea to explicitely allow differing ABIs for those?)
History only. We've talked about ditching libcalls entirely, but no one's gotten around to it yet. It shouldn't be hard to auto-generate tree decls for the functions and go through the normal expand_call. r~
