On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 05:57:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 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?
After rebase I was at r16-3026. With r16-3039 the test passes. I will commit shortly. Cheers, Stefan > > Jakub >
