https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Fri, 14 Apr 2023, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357 > > --- Comment #18 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17) > > Isn't this the same issue as seen in another bug, most targets defining > > TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES to hook_bool_const_tree_true but loongarch not? > > That will cause those conversions to be missed. > > Looks like we should define it, as our psABI says: > > In most cases, the unsigned integer data types are zero-extended when stored > in > general-purpose register, and the signed integer data types are sign-extended. > However, in the LP64D ABI, unsigned 32-bit types, such as unsigned int, are > stored in general-purpose registers as proper sign extensions of their 32-bit > values. > > IIUC it matches the semantics of TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES. TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is about foo (signed char) or foo (unsigned short), thus argument types less than int. With TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES defined to true they will get promoted to integer so you'll see foo ((int)x) when 'x' is of type signed char or unsigned short for the above cases.
