[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2015-09-16 Thread foom at fuhm dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 James Y Knight changed: What|Removed |Added CC||foom at fuhm dot net --- Comment #10

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2012-03-07 Thread meadori at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 Meador Inge meadori at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meadori at gmail

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-04-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.6.1 |---

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-03-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.6.0 |4.6.1 ---

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-01-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-03 14:23:05 UTC --- For void f1(char c, char d, char e, char f, char g, char h, char i); char x; void f2() { f1(x, x, x, x, x, x, x); } ICC generates this

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-01-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||42324 --- Comment #4

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-01-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-01-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 19:01:58 UTC --- And upper 32 bits are undefined if the argument is 8/16/32 bit (i.e. callee must sign/zero extend, instead of caller)?

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2011-01-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-02 20:53:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) And upper 32 bits are undefined if the argument is 8/16/32 bit (i.e. callee must sign/zero extend, instead of caller)? If callee wants

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2010-12-16 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2010-12-14 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 17:13:19 UTC --- __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) unsigned long f1 (unsigned int a, int b, unsigned short c, short d, unsigned char e, signed char f) { return (unsigned

[Bug target/46942] x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends

2010-12-14 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-14 17:26:11 UTC --- If the conclusion is that the callee can rely on the caller having done the extension then you need to watch out for security issues in