On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 05:40:09PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 04:23:14PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus 
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefa...@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > From: Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefa...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > > > 
> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > > 
> > > >         * explow.cc (promote_function_mode): Allow targets to promote
> > > >         _BitInt arguments.
> > > > ---
> > > >  Bootstrapped and regtested on s390.  Ok for mainline?
> > > 
> > > Do you need this with r16-2778-ga9b96c63d9f1c5cb4a6 now being committed?
> > 
> > Oh I haven't seen the commit from today.  LGTM and we can probably drop
> > this patch.  I will do another round of bootstrap+regtest and will
> > commit the other two patches eventually.
> 
> After rebasing I see gcc.dg/torture/bitint-64.c failing after
> r16-2779-geed0f5fa0e1e29 but I think this is not the real culprit, i.e.,
> even with r16-2778-ga9b96c63d9f1c5cb4a6 we return non-sign-extended
> value 22 from foo() but "unnecessarily" sign extend it after the call
> which is why we don't abort in this case.  With r16-2779-geed0f5fa0e1e29
> the "unnecessary" sign extend after the call is removed and we abort.

Even with r16-3039 in?

        Jakub

Reply via email to