rogfer01 added a comment. I'm curious about how we handle `_Float16` here.
My understanding from the psabi <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/master/riscv-cc.adoc#hardware-floating-point-calling-convention> and the Zfh draft <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GJb230aA2HKkRJ2jqw5bRL0q3FOPQMrN/view>, don't we want under `Zfh` + `ilp32f` to pass the float16 directly in a FP register? So for a case like this typedef _Float16 FP; typedef struct A { FP a; FP b; } A; void foo(A); void bar() { A a = {1.0, 2.0}; foo(a); } I'd expect `Zfh` + ilp32` to pass an `i32` (which we already do) define dso_local void @bar() local_unnamed_addr #0 { tail call void @foo(i32 1073757184) #2 ret void } and `Zfh` + `ilp32f` (and I understand `ilp32d` too) do define dso_local void @bar() local_unnamed_addr #0 { tail call void @foo(half 1.0e+0.0, half 2.0e+0.0) ret void } Perhaps it was already decided against using FP regs for `_Float16`? I think a similar consideration can be done for `rv64` + `Zfh` and `lp64` / `lp64f` / `lp64d`, the last two using FP registers. If this is the case, then I understand a parameter like typedef struct A { _Float16 a; float b; } A; would also be passed as two FP registers in `ilp32f`, `ilp32d`, `lp64f` and `lp64d`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112398/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112398 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
