> Am 30.12.2021 um 20:57 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel > <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>: > > On 30/12/2021 20:55, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote: >> On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote: >>> On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote: >>>> >>>> Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the question is whether the ldrsb >>>> w0,[x0] is correct or not. >>> >>> Yes, I was unclear: with the "I don't know/remember where this is done" I >>> meant "changing the load of the unsigned byte type into a signed load". I >>> can't think immediately of a reason either why this is done. >> "unsigned byte"? The pointer in the pascal code is a pint8 => signed. > > Oh, I thought it was puint8. Then it makes sense. > c90616944d3bde7b36e924d27a0790195d61f95c applies both to OS_8 and OS_S8.
Yes, but the question is: if we load a shortint into a register, do we need to sign extend it to 32/64 bit or not? I tend more and more to say that we shouldn’t require this. Neither clang nor gcc seem to expect this for arguments/return values: https://godbolt.org/z/sv5fPP6GM _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
