On 30/12/2021 21:03, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
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
This is not related to arguments/return values. We do the same on on
PPC, and afaik on all architectures that don't have 8/16 bit
subregisters. I initially did it on PPC because it simplified code
generation a lot and solved all kinds of small issues I got otherwise
because non-cleared higher parts of registers were used. Maybe with our
current code generators it would work better.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
